[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 11, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55968-56026]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22061]



[[Page 55967]]

Vol. 77

Tuesday,

No. 176

September 11, 2012

Part III





Department of the Interior





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





Fish and Wildlife Service





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





50 CFR Part 17





Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Status 
for Texas Golden Gladecress and Neches River Rose-mallow and 
Designation of Critical Habitat; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 11, 2012 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 55968]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2012-0064; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-AX74


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of 
Status for Texas Golden Gladecress and Neches River Rose-mallow and 
Designation of Critical Habitat

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, propose to list two 
Texas plants, Leavenworthia texana (Texas golden gladecress) as an 
endangered species and Hibiscus dasycalyx (Neches River rose-mallow) as 
a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act) and propose to designate critical habitat for both 
species. These are proposed regulations, and if finalized the effect of 
these regulations will be to conserve the species and protect their 
habitat under the Endangered Species Act.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before 
November 13, 2012. We must receive requests for public hearings, in 
writing, at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section by October 26, 
2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Keyword box, enter Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-
2012-0064, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, in the 
Search panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type 
heading, click on the Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You 
may submit a comment by clicking on ``Send a Comment or Submission.''
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public 
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R2-ES-2012-0064; Division of Policy and 
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax 
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
    We request that you send comments only by the methods described 
above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see the Public Comments section below for more information).
    The coordinates or plot points or both from which the critical 
habitat maps are generated are included in the administrative record 
for this rulemaking and are available at http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ElectronicLibrary/ElectronicLibrary_Main.cfm, http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2012-0064, and at the 
Corpus Christi Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT). Any additional tools or supporting information 
that we may develop for this rulemaking will also be available at the 
Fish and Wildlife Service Web site and Field Office set out above, and 
may also be included in the preamble and/or at www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Allan Strand, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Corpus Christi Ecological Services Field 
Office, 6300 Ocean Drive, Unit 5837, Corpus Christi, Texas, 78412-5837, 
by telephone 361-994-9005 or by facsimile 361-994-8262. Persons who use 
a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Endangered Species Act 
(Act), a species may warrant protection through listing if it is 
determined to be an endangered or threatened species throughout all or 
a significant portion of its range. Leavenworthia texana (Texas golden 
gladecress) and Hibiscus dasycalyx (Neches River rose-mallow) have been 
candidates for listing since 1997, but action has been precluded by 
higher priority listings. As part of a court-approved settlement, we 
agreed to reevaluate the status of both species and after conducting a 
thorough review of the current status and level of threats to both 
species and their habitats between fall 2011 and winter 2012, we 
concluded that listing, and designation of critical habitat, for both 
species is warranted.
    This rule proposes to add both species to the Federal Lists of 
Threatened and Endangered Animals and Plants and proposes to designate 
critical habitat for both species.
     We propose to list the Texas golden gladecress and the 
Neches River rose-mallow as an endangered and threatened species, 
respectively, under the Act.
    We propose to designate approximately 1,353 acres (ac) (539 
hectares (ha)) of critical habitat for the gladecress in Sabine and San 
Augustine Counties, and approximately 187.8 ac (76.0 ha) of critical 
habitat for the rose-mallow in Cherokee, Houston, Trinity, Harrison, 
and Nacogdoches Counties, Texas.
    The basis for our action. Under the Act, we can determine that a 
species is an endangered or threatened species based on any of five 
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) Overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) 
Disease or predation; (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its 
continued existence.
    We have determined that both species are negatively affected by the 
following:
     Habitat loss and degradation of herbaceous glade plant 
communities supporting the gladecress, and of open habitats on hydric 
alluvial soils along sloughs, oxbows, terraces, and wetlands of the 
Neches River or Mud and Tantabogue Creeks that support the rose-mallow. 
Activities or factors negatively impacting the habitat of the 
gladecress include: Glauconite quarrying; natural gas and oil 
exploration and production; invasion of open glades by nonnative and 
native shrubs, trees, and vines, and other weedy species; pine tree 
plantings in close proximity to occupied glades; and herbicide 
applications that have potential to kill emerging seedlings. The rose-
mallow's habitat is being lost and degraded by encroachment of 
nonnative and native plant species, particularly trees, herbicide use, 
livestock trampling, and alteration of natural hydrology of seasonal 
flooding to conditions where habitat has been drained or has become 
permanently flooded. Prolonged or frequent droughts can exacerbate 
habitat degradation for both species.
     Lack of existing regulatory mechanisms to protect either 
species or their habitats.
     Other natural or manmade factors, including low numbers of 
individual plants and few remaining populations. The species' natural 
variability that is associated with climatic conditions can be 
negatively affected by the effects of drought.
    Also under the Act, upon making a determination that a species 
warrants listing as an endangered or threatened species, we are 
required to designate critical habitat to the maximum extent prudent 
and determinable. We are required to base the designation on the best 
available scientific data after taking into consideration economic and 
other impacts. We can exclude an area from critical habitat if the 
benefits of

[[Page 55969]]

exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation, unless the exclusion 
will result in the extinction of the species.
    This rule proposes to designate critical habitat for each species.
    We are proposing to designate critical habitat for both species in 
East Texas as follows:
     Approximately 1,353 acres (ac) (539 hectares (ha)) are 
designated as critical habitat for Texas golden gladecress.
     Approximately 178 ac (76 ha) are designated as critical 
habitat for Neches River rose-mallow.
    We are planning to prepare an economic analysis. To ensure that we 
consider the economic impacts, we will prepare an economic analysis of 
the proposed critical habitat designations. We will use the data from 
the economic analysis to inform the final rule.
    We will seek peer review. We are seeking comments from independent 
specialists to ensure that our assessment of threats and their impacts 
on these species, as well as our critical habitat designations, are 
based on the best available scientifically sound data, assumptions, and 
analyses. We have invited these peer reviewers to comment on our 
proposed listing of the gladecress and the rose-mallow and our critical 
habitat designations. Because we will consider all comments and 
information received during the comment period, our final 
determinations may differ from this proposal.
    This document consists of: (1) One proposed rule to list the 
Leavenworthia texana as an endangered species; (2) one proposed rule to 
list the Hibiscus dasycalyx as a threatened species; and (3) proposed 
critical habitat designations for each species. For the purposes of 
this document, we will refer to Leavenworthia texana as Texas golden 
gladecress or gladecress and Hibiscus dasycalyx as Neches River rose-
mallow or rose-mallow.

Information Requested

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request 
comments or information from the public, other concerned governmental 
agencies, Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry, 
or any other interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We 
particularly seek comments concerning:
    (1) These species' biology, range, and population trends, 
including:
    (a) Habitat requirements for pollination, reproduction, and 
dispersal;
    (b) Genetics and taxonomy;
    (c) Historical and current range including distribution patterns;
    (d) Historical and current population levels, and current and 
projected trends; and
    (e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for these species, their 
habitat or both.
    (2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing 
determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 
1531 et seq.), which are:
    (a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of their habitat or range;
    (b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (c) Disease or predation;
    (d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting their continued 
existence.
    (3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning 
any threats (or lack thereof) to these species and existing regulations 
that may be addressing those threats;
    (4) Additional information concerning the historical and current 
status, range, distribution, and population size of these species, 
including the locations of any additional populations of these species;
    (5) Any information on the biological or ecological requirements of 
the species, and ongoing conservation measures for the species and 
their habitat;
    (6) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as 
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.), including whether there are threats to these species from human 
activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase due to the 
designation, and whether that increase in threats outweighs the benefit 
of designation such that the designation of critical habitat is not 
prudent.
    (7) Specific information on:
    (a) The amount and distribution of the Texas golden gladecress and 
Neches River rose-mallow and their habitat;
    (b) What may constitute ``physical or biological features essential 
to the conservation of these species,'' within the geographical range 
currently occupied by these species;
    (c) Where these features are currently found;
    (d) Whether any of these features may require special management 
considerations or protection;
    (e) What areas, that were occupied at the time of listing (or are 
currently occupied) and that contain features essential to the 
conservation of these species, should be included in the designation 
and why;
    (f) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential 
for the conservation of these species and why;
    (8) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the 
areas occupied by these species or proposed to be designated as 
critical habitat, and possible impacts of these activities on these 
species and proposed critical habitat;
    (9) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of 
climate change on these species and proposed critical habitat;
    (10) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other relevant 
impacts that may result from designating any area that may be included 
in the final designation. We are particularly interested in any impacts 
on small entities, and the benefits of including or excluding areas 
from the proposed designation that are subject to these impacts;
    (11) Whether our approach to designating critical habitat could be 
improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public 
participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating 
public concerns and comments;
    (12) The likelihood of adverse social reactions to the designation 
of critical habitat and how the consequences of such reactions, if 
likely to occur, would relate to the conservation and regulatory 
benefits of the proposed critical habitat designations.
    Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as 
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to 
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
    Please note that submissions merely stating support for or 
opposition to the action under consideration without providing 
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in 
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that 
determinations as to whether any species is a threatened or endangered 
species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and 
commercial data available.''
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We request 
that you send comments only by the methods described in the ADDRESSES 
section.
    If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your 
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will 
be posted on the Web site. If your submission is made via a hardcopy 
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the 
top of your document

[[Page 55970]]

that we withhold this information from public review. However, we 
cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all 
hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov. Please include 
sufficient information with your comments to allow us to verify any 
scientific or commercial information you include.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by 
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Corpus Christi Ecological Services Field Office (see 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above).

Previous Federal Actions

    We first identified the Texas golden gladecress and Neches River 
rose-mallow as candidates for listing in the September 19, 1997, Notice 
of Review of Plant and Animal Taxa that are Candidates or Proposed for 
Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species (62 FR 49397). Candidates 
are those fish, wildlife, and plants for which we have on file 
sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to 
support preparation of a listing proposal, but for which development of 
a listing regulation is precluded by other higher priority listing 
activities. The Texas golden gladecress and the Neches River rose-
mallow were included in subsequent annual Candidate Notices of Reviews 
through 2004 (64 FR 57533, October 25, 1999; 66 FR 54808, October 30, 
2001; 67 FR 40657, June 13, 2002; and 69 FR 24876, May 4, 2004). A 
petition to list Texas golden gladecress and the Neches River rose-
mallow was received on May 11, 2004, but contained no new information, 
and we continued to include both species in all annual Candidate 
Notices of Review between 2005 and 2011 (70 FR 24870, May 11, 2005; 71 
FR 53756, September 12, 2006; 72 FR 69034, December 6, 2007; 73 FR 
75176, December 10, 2008; 74 FR 57804, November 9, 2009; 75 FR 69222, 
November 10, 2010; and 76 FR 66370, October 26, 2011). In 2000, Texas 
golden gladecress' listing priority number was increased from 5 to 2 in 
accordance with our priority guidance published on September 21, 1983 
(48 FR 43098). A listing priority of 2 reflects a species with threats 
that are both imminent and high in magnitude. In 2010, Neches River 
rose-mallow's listing priority number was also increased from 5 to 2. 
It is our intent to discuss below only those topics directly relevant 
to the proposed listing of the Texas golden gladecress as an endangered 
species and Neches River rose-mallow as a threatened species in this 
section of the proposed rule.

Background

    This document contains proposed rules to list Texas golden 
gladecress as an endangered species and Neches River rose-mallow as a 
threatened species and to propose critical habitat for each species. 
The document is structured to address the taxa separately under each of 
the sectional headings that follow.

Species Information

Texas Golden Gladecress

Taxonomy and Description
    Texas golden gladecress is a small, annual, herbaceous plant 
belonging to the mustard family (Brassicaceae). Dr. M.C. Leavenworth, 
an Army physician, first collected the taxon in Choctaw County, 
Oklahoma, in 1835, and the specimens were later described as a new 
species, Leavenworthia aurea, by Torrey (Mahler 1981, pp. 76-77). From 
1836 to 1837, Leavenworth collected similar specimens near the present-
day town of San Augustine, San Augustine County, Texas, and these were 
also identified as L. aurea. Later collections of the plant in the San 
Augustine area were made by E.J. Palmer (1915 and 1918), D.S. and H.B. 
Correll (1961 to 1962) as cited by Mahler (1981, pp. 83), and 
populations in this area were studied and mapped by George and Nixon 
(1990, pp. 117-127) between 1979 to 1980. W.H. Mahler studied the 
collected specimens and their habitat, and described the Texas plants 
as a new species, Leavenworthia texana (Mahler 1987, pp. 239-242), 
based on differences in morphological characteristics of flowers and 
leaves, and in chromosome number, between the Oklahoma and Texas plants 
(Mahler 1987, pp. 239-242).
    According to Mahler (1987, p. 240), Texas golden gladecress flower 
petals were a brighter, deeper yellow than those of L. aurea; and the 
petals were egg-shaped and flat instead of being broad and notched. The 
L. texana had wider-than-long terminal leaf segments that were usually 
distinctly lobed while L. aurea's terminal leaves were essentially 
unlobed, flat, and more circular. Texas plants had a chromosome number 
of 2n = 22 (E.S. Nixon, pers. comm. in Mahler 1987, pp. 239, 241) while 
the Oklahoma L. aurea had 2n = 48 (Rollins 1963, pp. 9-11; Beck et al. 
2006, p. 156). We are aware that a recently completed monograph of the 
genus may have taxonomic implications for the Texas and Oklahoma 
Leavenworthia species in the future, but several questions, including 
the differences in chromosome number, remain unresolved and no 
supporting information that would change the current status of Texas 
golden gladecress has been published to date (Poole 2011a, pers. 
comm.).
    Texas golden gladecress is a weakly rooted, glabrous (smooth, 
glossy), winter annual (completes its life cycle in 1 year). Texas 
golden gladecress is small in stature, less than 3.9 inches (in) (10 
centimeters (cm)) in height, making it difficult to find except during 
flowering or when it bears fruit. The leaves are 0.8-3.1 in (2-8 cm) 
long and 0.4-0.6 in (1-1.5 millimeters (mm)) wide, forming rosettes at 
the base of the plant. Terminal leaf segments are wider-than-long, and 
usually distinctly lobed, with angular teeth. Flowers are bright yellow 
and borne on scapes (leafless flowering stems or stalks arising from 
the ground) that are 1.2-3.5 in (3-9 cm) long early in the flowering 
season. Later in the season, the flowers occur on unbranched flower 
clusters that come off a single central stem from which the individual 
flowers grow on small stalks, at intervals. The four petals are bright 
golden-yellow with a slightly darker base, narrowly obovate (tongue-
shaped), 0.3-0.4 in (7-10 mm) long and 0.1-0.2 (3.5-5 mm) wide. The 
fruit is a slender seed capsule, known as a silique, with a length 
(0.6-1.2 in (15-30 mm)) that is more than twice its width (0.08-0.22 in 
(2-5.5 mm)) and that contains 5-11 flattened, circular or spherically 
shaped seeds. The description above was drawn from Poole et al. (2007, 
p. 286), who adapted it from others.
Habitat
    Texas golden gladecress occurs within the Pineywoods natural region 
of easternmost Texas, within the Gulf Coastal Plain Physiographic 
Region. The region is defined by pine-dominated forests or woodlands 
interspersed with bottomland, mesic slope and bald cypress-tupelo swamp 
forests. Many of the rare plants of the Pineywoods region, including 
the gladecress and the federally endangered Physaria pallida (white 
bladderpod) are found in small-scale plant communities tied to 
``geologic and hydrologic conditions that are themselves rather rare on 
the landscape'' (Poole et al. 2007, p. 6).
    The Texas golden gladecress is endemic to glade habitats in 
northern San Augustine and northwest Sabine Counties, Texas, and is a 
habitat specialist, occurring only on outcrops of the Weches Geologic 
Formation (Mahler 1987, p. 240; George and Nixon 1990, p. 120; Poole et 
al. 2007, pp. 286-287). The gladecress grows only in glades on shallow, 
calcium-rich soils that are wet

[[Page 55971]]

in winter and spring. These occur on ironstone (glauconite or green-
stone) outcrops (Poole et al. 2007, p. 286).
    All species within the small genus Leavenworthia share an 
adaptation to glade habitats that have unique physical characteristics, 
the most important being a combination of shallow soil depth and high 
calcium content (dolomitic limestone or otherwise calcareous soils) 
where the soil layers have been deposited in such a manner that they 
maintain temporary high-moisture content at or very near the surface 
(Rollins 1963, pp. 4-6). Typically, only a few inches of soil overlie 
the bedrock, or, in spots, the soil may be almost lacking and the 
surface barren. The glade habitats that support all Leavenworthia 
species are extremely wet during the late winter and early spring and 
then dry to the point of being parched in summer (Rollins 1963, p. 5). 
These glades can vary in size from as small as a few meters to larger 
than 0.37 miles\2\ (mi\2\) (1 kilometer\2\ (km\2\)) and are 
characterized as having an open, sunny aspect (lacking canopy) 
(Quarterman 1950, p. 1; Rollins 1963, p. 5). The landscape position of 
the glades may also play a role in assuring the cyclic moisture regime 
required by glade vegetation communities.
    The Weches Geologic Formation consists of bands of ancient marine 
sediments deposited in a line roughly parallel to the Gulf of Mexico, 
running from Sabine to Frio Counties, Texas. A layer of glauconite clay 
is either exposed at the surface or covered by a thin layer of 
calcareous (calcium-containing) sediment measuring as deep as 20 in (50 
cm) (George and Nixon 1990, pp. 117-118). Glauconite is a 
characteristic mineral of marine depositional environments, presenting 
a greenish color when initially exposed to the atmosphere, and later 
turning red (Davis 1966, pp. 17-18; Nemec 1996, p. 7). The area of the 
Weches outcrops in San Augustine County is referred to as the 
``redlands'' (Ritter 2011b, pers. comm.). The glauconite is very 
friable (crumbly) and has low resistance to weathering (Geocaching.com 
2010, p. 5). The soils overlying the clay layer are typically rocky and 
shallow (George 1987, p. 3) and at all Texas golden gladecress sites 
are classified within the Nacogdoches, Trawick, or Bub soils series 
(USDA 2009, entire).
    Weches outcrops occur in a band averaging 5 miles (mi) (8 
kilometers (km)) in width that parallels Texas State Highway (SH) 21 
through northern San Augustine and northwestern Sabine Counties 
(Sellards et al. 1932 in Diggs et al. 2006, p. 56). It has been deeply 
dissected by erosion that created islands of thin, loamy, alkaline 
soils (pH 7-8), within the normally deep, sandy, acidic soils (pH 4-5) 
of the Pineywoods region. The glauconite layer of the Weches Formation 
is fairly impermeable to water, producing saturated, thin upper soils 
in late fall through spring, that dry out and harden during summer 
months (George 1987, pp. 2-4; Bezanson 2000 in Diggs et al. 2006, p. 
56). Down-slope seepage across the Weches terraces may also be 
important to maintain the hydrology required by the gladecress 
(Singhurst 2003, pers. comm.). The cyclic moisture regime and the 
alkalinity of the soils produce conditions unique to the Weches 
outcrops. Certain plants, such as the Texas golden gladecress, have 
evolved to live within these specialized geologic formations (Mahler 
1987, p. 240; George and Nixon 1990, pp. 120-122).
Biology
    The Texas golden gladecress occurs in open, sunny, herbaceous-
dominated plant communities in Weches glades, in some areas that also 
support the white bladderpod (Bridges 1988, p. II-7, II-35, and II-35 
supplement). Unlike the white bladderpod, which can grow throughout the 
glade, the gladecress is restricted to the outcrop rock faces within 
the glades where it occurs (Nemec 1996, p. 8).
    As is true of other Leavenworthia species (Rollins 1963, p. 6), 
Texas golden gladecress seeds germinate during fall rains and the 
plants overwinter as small, tap-rooted rosettes. Flowering begins in 
February and continues into March, and sometimes as late as April, 
depending on annual weather conditions. Rollins (1963, p. 6) noted that 
the blooming period of Leavenworthia varied according to the 
temperature, moisture, and severity of winter freezes. Fruit production 
is generally seen from March into April. The plants respond to drying 
of the soil by dropping seed and withering away, usually in April and 
May (Singhurst 2011b, pers. comm.). By summer months, gladecress plants 
are dead, replaced by other low-growing species such as Sedum 
pulchellum (stonecrop), Portulaca oleracea (common purslane), 
Phemeranthus parviflorus (sunbright), and Elocharis occulata (limestone 
spikerush) (Singhurst 2012e, pers. comm.). Although seed dispersal has 
not been studied in Texas golden gladecress, observations indicate that 
seeds fall within 6-8 in (15-20 cm) of the parent plant (Singhurst 
2011c, pers. comm.).
    Little is known about the gladecress' seed bank as this aspect of 
life history has not been researched. The species did reappear at two 
sites where it was believed lost due to habitat degradation. A 
population location, the Geneva Site in Sabine County (see Table 1), 
was bulldozed in late March 1999, one week after flowering plants were 
counted--the site was subsequently described by the surveyor as ``lost 
or destroyed'' (Turner 1999, pers. comm.). However, plants were found 
again at this site in 2003 and continued to emerge in succeeding years. 
At a second site in San Augustine County (Chapel Hill Site, see Table 
1), a thick growth of the invasive, nonnative shrub, Rosa bracteata 
(Macartney rose) was removed in 1995. Post-brush removal, the 
gladecress reappeared after not having been seen for the previous 10 
years (Nemec 1996, p. 1). The species' reappearance after these habitat 
alterations suggests a persistent seed bank, although there have been 
no formal studies to verify this hypothesis.
    Rare plants often have adaptations such as early blooming, extended 
flowering, or mixed-mating systems that allow them to persist in small 
populations (Brigham 2003, p. 61). The Texas golden gladecress is 
believed to be self-compatible and able to self-fertilize (Rollins 
1963, p. 19; Beck et al. 2006, p. 153). The species may have evolved 
for self-fertilization when conditions are not favorable for insect-
vectored pollination, lessening the species' dependence on pollinators 
for cross-pollination and survival and potentially making the species 
more resilient under conditions of small, geographically separated 
populations. Rollins (1963, pp. 41-47) speculated that species in the 
genus Leavenworthia evolved from a self-incompatible original ancestor 
to self-compatibility in some species to persist with a diminishing 
overlap in seasonality of adequate moisture in glade habitats versus 
availability of insect pollinators (e.g., as the southeastern part of 
the U.S. warmed, the required moisture levels for germination and 
flowering became more restricted to winter months when insect 
availability was lower). This could help to enhance the species' 
persistence, at least in the short term, in a fragmented landscape 
where habitat patches may be so distant from one another as to preclude 
pollinators' movements between them. The presence of other flowering 
plants at gladecress sites could help to attract and maintain a 
reservoir of pollinators, thereby increasing the chances for the 
gladecress to be cross-pollinated. This would benefit the species by 
potentially providing a higher level of genetic diversity.

[[Page 55972]]

Distribution and Status
    Texas golden gladecress is known from eight locations, including 
one introduced population, all within a narrow zone that parallels SH 
21 in San Augustine, Sabine, and Nacogdoches Counties (Texas Natural 
Diversity Database (TXNDD) 2012b). Table 1 (below) summarizes the 
location information for Texas golden gladecress populations (taken 
from the TXNDD 2012b). Based on known population locations, taken from 
the TXNDD element occurrence records from 1974-1988, the Weches Glades 
of San Augustine County appear to be the center of the species' 
distribution; to date all but one of the naturally occurring 
populations were found in this area, with the other naturally occurring 
population in Sabine County. One population was successfully introduced 
into Nacogdoches County. All locations (historic and extant) occur 
primarily on privately owned land, although the plants do extend onto 
the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) right-of-way (ROW) at 
two sites: Geneva Site and Caney Creek Glades Site 1 (CCG 1).

                                           Table 1--Location and Status of Texas Golden Gladecress Populations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               County                Population designation             Status             Historic site description               Land owner
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Augustine......................  Caney Creek Glade Site  Extant.....................  Described by The Nature      Private & State ROW.
                                      1.                                                   Conservancy as approx. 1
                                                                                           ac (0.4 ha) site; by 2001
                                                                                           was less than 100 ft[sup2]
                                                                                           (9 m[sup2]).
San Augustine......................  Chapel Hill (aka Tiger  Extant.....................  Tract on which gladecress    Private.
                                      Creek).                                              was found was less than
                                                                                           0.25 ac (0.1 ha).
Sabine.............................  Geneva................  Extant.....................  Size of site was approx.     Private & State ROW.
                                                                                           100 ft[sup2] (9 m[sup2]).
Nacogdoches........................  Simpson Farms           Extant through 2009. Site    Population approx. 200       Private.
                                      (Introduced             was eradicated by pipeline   ft[sup2] (18 m[sup2]) in
                                      Population).            in 2011.                     size.
San Augustine......................  Caney Creek Glade Site  Status unknown. Possibly     Small population; locally    Private.
                                      7.                      extant--not accessible in    abundant in very small
                                                              last 24 years.               area.
San Augustine......................  Caney Creek Glade Site  Site is now excavated pits.  Site was approx. 3 ac        Private.
                                      2.                                                   (1.21ha).
San Augustine......................  Caney Creek Glade Site  Site is now excavated pits.  Multiple tracts totaling ~   Private.
                                      6.                      Possibility that some        10 ac. Sites 6, 7 and 8 in
                                                              habitat and plants remain    different areas on these
                                                              on adjacent, unquarried      tracts. Site 6 was the
                                                              land.                        largest known population--
                                                                                           thousands of plants.
San Augustine......................  Caney Creek Glade Site  Site lost to excavated pits  Very small population on a   Private.
                                      8.                                                   degraded outcrop.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Four Texas golden gladecress populations (CCG 1, Chapel Hill, 
Geneva, and Simpson Farms) were present through 2009--the last year 
that the plants were surveyed (Singhurst 2011a, pers. comm.). In 
October 2011, Service and TPWD biologists visited all four known 
locations and found that the plants and habitat at the introduced site 
in Nacogdoches County (Simpson Farms) had been removed by a recent 
pipeline installation. The habitat was still intact at the other three 
locations (Cobb 2011, pers. comm.), and we assume that plants still 
occupy these sites.
    Three San Augustine County occurrences (CCG Sites 2, 6, and 8) were 
believed extirpated, at least in large part, by construction of 
glauconite mines (open pits) beginning in the late 1990's. These 
occurrences may have been part of a much larger glade complex, referred 
to as the Caney Creek Glade Complex, that included the Caney Creek 
Glade Sites 1, 2, 6, 7, and 8. These five occurrences were located 
within an area extending out to 1.5 mi (2.41 km) to the east of the 
town of San Augustine (TXNDD 2012b, unpaginated). In 1987, the CCG Site 
6 was described as having Texas golden gladecress plants ``in the 
thousands'' (TXNDD 2012b, unpaginated). Access to these three privately 
owned sites is prohibited; therefore, we cannot ascertain whether any 
plants or their habitat are still present on the peripheries of the 
mined areas.
    The CCG Site 7 was last visited in 1988 (TXNDD 2012b, unpaginated). 
There were no further site visits due to lack of access to the 
privately owned land. Satellite images taken as recently as 2008 show 
this population site has not been altered by construction or quarrying 
(mining), but the open glade appearance at this site has changed to one 
of dense growth of woody vegetation, so it is unknown whether the 
plants still occur at the site.
    Table 2 presents estimates for extant Texas golden gladecress 
populations between 1999 and 2009 (USFWS 2012, p. 4). The total number 
of plants seen in 2009 was 1,108. The largest population, consisting of 
721 plants, was at the introduced site in Nacogdoches County, a site 
that was lost in 2011 when a pipeline route was constructed directly 
through it. This represents a loss of 65 percent of the known plants. 
After 2009, approximately 400 plants in 3 populations were all that 
remained of this species. The number of gladecress plants fluctuated 
widely from year to year, likely due to differences in precipitation 
levels between years. The gladecress is dependent on fall and winter 
rain to saturate the sediment and produce the seeps and pooling it 
requires, and drought conditions were noted to have a significant 
negative effect on reproduction, (Turner 2000, p. 1) as seen in the 
drought years of 1999-2000 (Texas Water Resources Institute 2011, 
unpaginated) when the Chapel Hill site decreased from 91 to 67 plants 
and the CCG Site 1 decreased from 490 to 96 plants (USFWS 2010, p. 5).

 Table 2--Population Estimates for Texas Golden Gladecress at Monitored
                                  Sites
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Chapel  CCG 1      Geneva    Farms
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999............................       91       490        319      * NS
2000............................       67        96         NS        NS

[[Page 55973]]

 
2001............................       96       520         NS       270
2002............................       NS        NS         NS        NS
2003............................       42        NS         57        57
2004............................       NS        NS         NS        NS
2005............................    40-50         0         54     2,873
2006............................       NS        NS        200        NS
2007............................      200        NS      1,000     1,000
2008............................        9        NS         49        NS
2009............................       98        29        260       721
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* NS--Not surveyed.

    Singhurst (2011a, pers. comm.) referred to the difficulty of trying 
to determine population trends for the Texas golden gladecress due to 
the lack of comprehensive numbers for the species. He attributed this 
data gap to variation in surveyors and their techniques, the inability 
to see gladecress plants under invasive brush, lack of access to 
multiple sites, and the fluctuation in plant numbers associated with 
moisture conditions. Nevertheless, despite these limitations, it is 
evident that there are few remaining populations and that the overall 
numbers of existing plants are fluctuating. For example, a decrease in 
plant numbers in 2009 was likely due to drought; however, following 
significant rains in late fall 2011 and early winter 2012, Singhurst 
(2012f, pers. comm.) noted higher numbers of plants than the 2009 
counts at Geneva, Chapel Hill, and CCG Site 1.
    Most of the known populations, historic and extant, were and are 
restricted to small areas (see Table 1). For example, in San Augustine 
County, the Chapel Hill site is less than 0.2 acres (ac) (0.1 hectare 
(ha)) in size and lies between a pasture fence and gravel road 
southwest of SH 21. The area of the plants at the CCG Site 1 is less 
than 100 ft\2\ (9 m\2\) in size, on the side of Sunrise Road south of 
SH 21. In Sabine County, the plants at the Geneva site occupy 
approximately 100 ft\2\ (9 m\2\) adjacent to, and west of, SH 21, south 
of Geneva. The total area occupied by the plants at the remaining three 
sites covers less than 1.2 ac (0.5 ha). Area sizes for gladecress 
occurrences were taken from the TXNDD element of occurrence records.
    Although no new populations of Texas golden gladecress have been 
found since the late 1980s, there is potential for more gladecress to 
exist across the Weches Glades Region. Known populations all occur 
close to roads suggesting that most searches for the species were 
nearby to public road access. All known occurrences are on private 
property, as is all remaining habitat; therefore, surveys cannot be 
conducted without landowner permission. Effective identification of 
suitable habitat is needed to survey for new populations. Even in areas 
of potential Weches Glades, as identified using Geographic Systems 
Information (GIS) data, including aerial, geologic, and hydrologic data 
sources, the habitat may not contain Texas golden gladecress 
populations. Between 1999 and 2003, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) used 
these tools to identify 44 potential sites of gladecress and white 
bladderpod occurrence in the San Augustine Glades. The TNC was granted 
access to 14 of the 44 sites, but found little Weches habitat, and no 
new gladecress or bladderpod sites (Turner 2003 in USFWS 2010b, p. 3).

Neches River rose-mallow

Taxonomy and Description
    Hibiscus dasycalyx (the rose-mallow) (Blake) is a nonwoody 
perennial (plant that grows year after year) in the Malvaceae (mallow) 
family that grows 1.9-7.5 feet (ft) (0.6-2.3 meters (m)) tall (Correll 
and Johnston 1979, p. 1030). Leaves are alternate and simple, generally 
t-shaped and deeply three-lobed with petioles (leaf stalks) 1.1-1.9 in 
(3-5 cm) long (Correll and Johnston 1979, p. 1030). This rose-mallow 
generally produces six or seven creamy white flowers (rarely pink) 
singularly on branches flowering between June and August (Poole et al. 
2007, p. 265), sometimes into late October depending on water 
availability during springtime inundations (Warnock 1995, p. 20; Center 
for Plant Conservation 2011, http://www.centerforplantconservation.org/
). Large and numerous stamens are monodelphous, forming a tube that is 
united with the base of the petals (Klips 1999, p. 270).
    The rose-mallow was first collected by Ivan Shiller on June 23, 
1955, at the type locality at Hwy 204 (also referred to as Apple 
Springs), Trinity County, Texas, and was later identified as a distinct 
species (Correll and Johnston 1979, pp. 1030-1031). Blake (1958, p. 
277) determined that the rose-mallow was different from the closely 
related Hibiscus laevis (halberdleaf rose-mallow) by examining 
specimens from the type locality. Gould (1975), Nixon (1985), Hatch et 
al. (1990), Johnston (1990), and Fryxell (Warnock 1995, pp. 1-2; Poole 
2002, pers. comm.) all recognized the rose-mallow as a distinct 
species.
    Two similar-looking Hibiscus species, H. laevis and H. moscheutos 
(crimsoneyed rose-mallow) are aquatic species documented in areas where 
the rose-mallow occurs. A morphological distinction between these 
Hibiscus species of East Texas and the rose-mallow is the species' 
notably hairy calyx (Warnock 1995, p. 5). All three of these species 
have a similar general appearance, but can be separated based on a 
comparison of external characteristics including leaf structure, and 
degree of pubescence (fine hairs) on the calyx, leaves, capsule (dry 
fruit), or seeds (Correll and Correll 1975, p. 1118; Blanchard 1976, p. 
5; Warnock 1995, p. 4). Geographically, these three species can be 
found within similar habitats, but the halberdleaf and the crimsoneyed 
rose-mallows prefer deeper water and are found along edges of major 
rivers and streams (Blanchard 1976, pp. 10-14; Poole 2011b, pers. 
comm.), compared with the rose-mallow, which is found in side channels 
and floodplains of major river drainages. Based on the available 
information on the species morphology, biology, and habitat-specific 
needs, we conclude that the rose-mallow is a valid taxon.
Habitat
    The rose-mallow is endemic to relatively open habitat (Kennedy and 
Poole 1990, p. 11) of the Pineywoods (or Timber belt) of East Texas 
(Gould 1975, p. 1; Correll and Johnston 1979, p. 1030), within 
Cherokee, Houston, and Trinity Counties and has been introduced into 
Nacogdoches and Harrison Counties. Shortleaf/loblolly pine-hardwood 
forests dominate the habitat with portions of suitable habitat 
extending into longleaf pine (Pinus palustrus) and loblolly pine forest 
(Pinus taeda) (Telfair 1983, p. 28; Diggs et al. 2006, p. 95). The 
common native woody and herbaceous plant associates are listed in Table 
3 (Warnock 1995, pp. 14-15; Poole et. al 2007, pp. 264-265).

[[Page 55974]]



                          Table 3--Native Plant Associates of Neches River Rose-Mallow
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Scientific name                                            Common name
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Native Woody Plant Associates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carya aquatic...................................  water hickory.
Cephalanthus occidentalis.......................  common buttonbush.
Celtis laevigata var. laevigata.................  sugar berry.
Fraxinus sp.....................................  ash.
Quercus lyrata..................................  overcup oak.
Q. nigra........................................  wateroak.
Liquidambar styraciflua.........................  sweetgum.
Salix nigra.....................................  black willow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Native Herbaceous Plant Associates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boehmeria cylindrica............................  smallspike false nettle.
Brunnichia ovate................................  buckwheat vine.
Carex lupulina..................................  common hop sedge.
Chasmanthium sessilifolium......................  longleaf woodoats.
Diodia virginiana...............................  Virginia buttonweed.
Eichhornia crassipes............................  water hyacinth.
Heliotropium indicum............................  Indian heliotrope.
H. moscheutos...................................  crimsoneyed rose-mallow.
H. laevis.......................................  halberdleaf rose-mallow.
Hydrolea ovate..................................  ovate false fiddleleaf.
Hydrocotyle ranunculoides.......................  floating pennywort.
Juncus effuses..................................  common rush.
Ludwigia leptocarpa.............................  anglestem primrose-willow.
Nuphar lutea....................................  yellow pond-lily.
Phanopyrum gymnocarpon..........................  Savannah-panicgrass.
Panicum ridgulum................................  redtop panicgrass.
Pluchea foetida.................................  stinking camphorweed.
Polygonum hydropiperoides.......................  swamp smartweed.
Pontederia cordata..............................  pickerelweed.
Rhynchospora corniculata........................  shortbristle horned beaksedge.
Scirpus cyperinus...............................  woolgrass.
Thalia dealbata.................................  powdery alligator-flag.
Trachelospermum difforme........................  climbing dogbane.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sites where the rose mallow have been found have been described as 
sloughs, oxbows, terraces, and sand bars. Sites include low areas 
(Warnock 1995, p. 13) within the Neches River basin and Mud and 
Tantabogue Creek basins, with soils that are classified generically as 
hydric alluvials, or water-saturated soils, of the Inceptisol or 
Entisol orders (Diggs et al. 2006, pp. 46, 79) that remain flooded or 
frequently flood. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Natural 
Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) completed soils surveys for all 
counties with known occurrences of the rose-mallow, and the associated 
soils are frequently flooded clay loams. Sites are both perennial and 
intermittent wetlands with water levels between sites varying due to 
their proximity to water, amount of rainfall, and floodwaters. 
Intermittent wetlands are inundated during the winter months but become 
dry during the summer months (Warnock 1995, p. 11). Flowing water is 
required for seed dispersal downstream (Warnock 1995, p. 20; Scott 
1997, p. 8; Reeves 2008, p. 3). Rivers of East Texas tend to overflow 
onto banks and floodplains (Diggs et al. 2006, p. 78), especially 
during the rainy season, thereby dispersing seed. Research has not been 
done to identify methods of seed dispersal upstream; however, avian 
species may facilitate this process.
Biology
    The rose-mallow is a perennial that dies back to the ground every 
year and resprouts from the base; however, still maintaining 
aboveground stems. Longevity of the species is unknown but it may be 
long-lived. Cross-pollination occurs (Blanchard 1976, p. 38) within the 
rose-mallow populations and the species has high reproductive potential 
(fecundity). The number of flowers and fruits per plant were documented 
during the TPWD's annual monitoring of the rose-mallow along State 
Highway (SH) ROWs. The species produced an average of 50 fruits per 
plant, but seed viability and survivorship are not known (Poole 2012a, 
pers. comm.). An open canopy (Warnock 1995, pp. 11, 13) and sunlight 
are needed for flowers to bloom, and the blooming period may only last 
1 day (Snow and Spira 1993, p. 160).
    Potential pollinators of the rose-mallow may include but are not 
limited to, the common bumblebee (Bombus pensylvanicus), Hibiscus bee 
(Ptilothrix bombiformis), moths, and the scentless plant bug Niesthrea 
louisianica (Klips 1995, p. 1471; Warnock 1995, p. 20; Warriner 2011, 
pers. comm.). Both H. laevis and H. moscheutos are pollinated by common 
bumblebees and the Hibiscus bee (Snow and Spira 1993, p. 160; Klips 
1999, p. 270). The solitary Hibiscus bee prefers gently sloping or flat 
areas with sandy or sandy-loam soils for nesting areas (Vaughan et al. 
2007, pp. 25-26; Black et al. 2009, p. 12), and female bees will 
excavate nest cavities in elevated, hard packed, dirt roadways or 
levees near stands of Hibiscus (in this case H. palustris) and standing 
water (Rust 1980, p. 427). Members of the genus Bombus (family Apidae) 
are social bees, predominantly found in temperate zones, nesting 
underground (Evans et al., 2008, p. 6) in sandy soils (Cane 1991, p. 
407). Bumblebees nest in small cavities, often underground in abandoned 
rodent nests, grass (Black et al. 2009, p. 12), or in open, grassy 
habitat (Warriner 2012a,

[[Page 55975]]

pers. comm.). Other aboveground-nesting bees that may potentially 
pollinate the rose-mallow may include carpenter, mason, and leaf cutter 
bees that nest in dead snags or twigs or standing dead wood (Warriner 
2012a, pers. comm.). Maximum foraging distances of solitary and social 
bee species are 492 to 1,968 ft (150 to 600 m) (Gathrmann and 
Tscharntke 2002, p. 762) and 263 to 5,413 ft (80 to 1,650 m) (Walther-
Hellwig and Frankl 2000, p. 244), respectively. The scentless plant bug 
is a member of the Rhopalidae family found specifically in association 
with various members of the Malvaceae family. This species is known to 
deposit eggs on both the vegetative and reproductive parts of mallow 
plants (Spencer 1988, p. 421). Holes have been eaten in floral parts of 
rose-mallow plants suggesting that the scentless plant bug may be a 
pollinator as well as a consumer of the rose-mallow.
    Natural fires occur every 1 to 3 years in East Texas (Landers et 
al. 1990, p. 136; Landers 1991, p. 73) and control the overgrowth of 
longleaf and loblolly pine, as well as nonnative species; humans later 
used fire to suppress overgrowth. Fire suppression allows for sweetgum 
(Liquidambar styraciflua), oaks (Quercus sp.), hickories (Carya sp.), 
common persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), and southern magnolia 
(Magnolia grandiflora) to invade the natural pine forests (Daubenmire 
1990, p. 341; Gilliam and Platt 1999, p. 22), and reduce the open 
canopy needed by the rose-mallow. Lack of fire increases the 
opportunity for nonnative species, such as chinese tallow (Triadica 
sebifera), to invade these sites.
Distribution and Status
    The natural geographic range of the rose-mallow is within Trinity, 
Houston, Harrison, and Cherokee Counties, Texas, on State highway (SH) 
ROWs and on private and Federal lands. However, the species has been 
introduced outside of the known geographic range in Nacogdoches County 
on private land (Mill Creek). In addition, populations of rose-mallow 
have been introduced within their natural geographic range on Federal 
lands. In total, there are 12 occurrences of rose-mallow (see Table 4). 
Eleven of these are within the known geographic range, and, as of 
October 2011, are occupied by the rose-mallow. The rose-mallow plants 
within the SH 230 ROW have not been seen since 2002, and the site is 
considered extirpated.

                         Table 4--Population Estimates for Known Rose-Mallow Occurrences
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            First and last
             Site                       County                observation                Plant estimates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Compartment 55, Davy         Houston...............  2000; 2011............  1000 in 2000, 750 in 2002, 750
 Crockett National Forest (NF).                                                  in 2010, 400-500 in Oct. 2011.
2. Compartment 16, Davy         Houston...............  2000; 2011............  450 in 2000, 115 in 2002, 78 in
 Crockett NF (introduced).                                                       2003, 50 in 2006, 90 in 2010,
                                                                                 43 in 2011.
3. Compartment 11, Davy         Houston...............  2004; 2011............  200 in 2004, 10 in 2006, 7 in
 Crockett NF (introduced).                                                       2010, 10 in 2011.
4. Compartment 20, Davy         Houston...............  2000; 2011............  200-250 in 2000, 70 in 2002, 182
 Crockett NF (introduced).                                                       in 2002, 350 in 2006, 120 in
                                                                                 2010, 101 in 2011.
5. SH 94 ROW/Boggy Slough.....  Trinity...............  1955; 2011............  100+ in 1968, 50 in 1986, 50 in
                                                                                 1987, 13 in 1988, 7-9 in 1991,
                                                                                 2 in 1992, 27 in 1993, 38 in
                                                                                 1994, 41 in 1995, 16 in 1996,
                                                                                 15 and 20 on private land in
                                                                                 1997, 13 in 1998, 49 in 1999,
                                                                                 17 in 2000, 15 and 300+ on
                                                                                 private land in 2001, 20 in
                                                                                 2002, 20 and 0 on private land
                                                                                 in 2005, 35 along powerline in
                                                                                 2007, 128 along ROW in 2011.
6. SH 204 ROW/Mud Creek.......  Cherokee..............  1992; 2011............  1 in 1992, 1 in 1993-1996, 75 in
                                                                                 1997, 1 in 1998, 2 in 1999, 1
                                                                                 in 2000, 5 in 2001, 1 in 2002,
                                                                                 7, 6, 3, and 30 respectively at
                                                                                 four new subpopulations in
                                                                                 2010, 20 in 2011.
7. SH 230 ROW.................  Houston...............  1978; 2002............  50 in 1991, 58 in 1993, 38 in
                                                                                 1994, 1 in 1995, 2 in 1996, 6
                                                                                 in 1997, 8-13 in 1998, 14 in
                                                                                 1999, 8 in 2000, 4 in 2001, 12
                                                                                 in Sept. 2002, none in Oct.
                                                                                 2002, none in 2003, 2004, 2005,
                                                                                 and 2011.
8. Lovelady...................  Houston...............  2011..................  50-70 in 1991, 7 in 1992, 58 in
                                                                                 1993, several hundred in 2001,
                                                                                 400 in 2002, 539 in 2011.
9. Mill Creek Gardens           Nacogdoches...........  1995; 2011............  96 in 1995, hundreds in Oct.
 (introduced).                                                                   2011.
10. Harrison site.............  Harrison..............  Not observed after      Herbarium specimen was recently
                                                         1980.                   confirmed as H. dasycalyx, but
                                                                                 site has not been observed
                                                                                 since 1980.
11. Champion site.............  Trinity...............  1996; 2001............  Hundreds in 1997, 300-400 in
                                                                                 2001.
12. Camp Olympia..............  Trinity...............  1977; 1992............  No estimates.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Populations along SH ROWs include Hwy 94 in Trinity County, 
collected in 1955 (Blake 1958, p. 277); Hwy 204 in Cherokee County, 
first observed in 1992; and Hwy 230 in Houston County, first observed 
in 1978. The TPWD performed annual SH ROW monitoring along Hwy 94 from 
1993 thru 2001 (Poole, 2001, p. 1); along Hwy 204 from 1993 thru 2003 
(Poole 2001, p. 1; TXNDD 2012a, pp. 20-28); and along Hwy 230 from 1993 
thru 2001 (Poole 2001, p. 1). These three ROW populations are separated 
from one another and are considered distinct. However, the Boggy Slough 
site consists of several scattered rose-mallow subpopulations that are 
located in close proximity to one another. Boggy Slough subpopulations 
and the SH 94 ROW population are separated by no more than a distance 
of 1.0 km (3, 280 ft), and these two sites likely constitute a single, 
larger population, sharing pollinators, and exchanging genetic material 
(NatureServe 2004, p. 6; Poole 2011c, p. 2). Therefore, in Table 4, 
they are combined and represented as a single location.
    Adjacent lands to the SH 230 ROW were purchased by the Texas Land 
Conservancy (TLC) in 2004 (TLC 2011, http://www.texaslandconservancy.org). The rose-mallow plants in this site, 
referred to as Lovelady, are part of a population that included the 
rose-mallow plants in the SH 230 ROW. The rose-mallow plants within the 
SH 230 ROW have not been observed since 2002, and the site is 
considered

[[Page 55976]]

extirpated (TXNDD 2012a, pp. 61-67). The Lovelady site was recently 
surveyed in 2011, and although 539 plants were found, most were in 
notably poor condition, being much shorter in stature because of the 
drought and herbivory (Poole 2012b, pers. comm.; TXNDD 2012a, pp. 14-
19). The estimates of rose-mallow displayed in Table 4 show wide 
variations in plant numbers. Some of this variation is due to 
incomplete counts at the sites, in other words, only a portion of the 
population was counted. Meaningful trends cannot be derived from these 
population estimates.
    Although annual monitoring of the ROW sites was discontinued in the 
early 2000s, TPWD visited all of the ROW sites in October 2011. In the 
past, along SH 204, several subpopulations existed along multiple 
portions of the ROW; however, several of these subpopulations were gone 
in 2011. The recent drought conditions have allowed surveyors to count 
rose-mallow plants in parts of sites that were not accessible in the 
past because the sites were too wet. The increase in numbers of plants 
at some of the ROW sites may be partially attributed to this.
    The Davy Crockett National Forest (NF), Houston County, Texas, 
contains four extant sites of the rose-mallow, three introduced and one 
natural. The one natural population is found in compartment 55 located 
west of the Neches River. This site is considered the most robust of 
all known extant populations (Poole 2011c, p. 3) and is almost entirely 
unaltered from its originally observed state as a seasonally wet 
flatwood pond, with vegetation being distinctly zoned (TXNDD 2012a, p. 
29). The three introduced populations are located in compartment 16, 
which started with 450 plants (Davis 2000, pers. comm.; McCormick 2002, 
p. 1; USFWS 2000, p. 3), compartment 20 with 200-250 plants (Davis 
2000, pers. comm.; McCormick 2002, p. 2; USFWS 2000, p. 3), and 
compartment 11 with about 200 plants (Nemec 2005, pers. comm.). The 
populations in compartments 16 and 20 were introduced in 2000, while 
the population in compartment 11 was introduced in 2004 (USFWS 2007, p. 
6). All four of the Davy Crockett NF sites were censused in October 
2011 by the Service and TPWD, and all of the introduced sites on the 
Davy Crockett National Forest have declined dramatically.
    The four remaining rose-mallow sites have had sporadic monitoring 
or have not been visited in recent years. In 1995, Stephen F. Austin 
State University (SFASU) Mast Arboretum planted 96 rose-mallow plants 
into a site at Mill Creek Gardens, Nacogdoches County (Scott 1997, pp. 
6-7). A conservation easement was placed on this land, and now the site 
is managed by the Arboretum. Rose-mallow plants at this site were 
observed in 1997, 1998, 2001, 2009, and in 2011 (Creech 2011a, pers. 
comm.). The introduced plants appear to be doing well; however, 
nonnatives and native species are becoming more prevalent, and may 
compete with the rose-mallow (Creech 2011c, pers. comm.). A rose-mallow 
specimen collected on private lands in 1980 from Harrison County, 
Texas, was presumed to be a halberdleaf rose-mallow specimen; however, 
it has been recently confirmed (2011) to be the rose-mallow (Birnbaum 
2011, pers. comm.; TXNDD 2012a, pp. 12-13). The Harrison County site 
has not been visited since 1980, but we presume that rose-mallow is 
extant at this site since we have no evidence that the species is 
extirpated. Two additional populations occur on private lands in 
Trinity County; the Camp Olympia and Champion sites, discovered in 1977 
and 1996, respectively. The current status of rose-mallow on the Camp 
Olympia site is unknown since access has been denied. We consider this 
site to be extant because we have no evidence that it has been 
extirpated. The population on the Champion site was observed in 2011; 
plants were seen, but no plants counts were done.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding 
species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 
Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species based 
on any of the following five factors: (A) The present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade 
factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be 
warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in 
combination. Each of these factors is discussed below.

Texas Golden Gladecress

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

    Habitat loss and degradation have been the primary cause of decline 
in Texas golden gladecress during the last two decades. Permanent 
removal or destruction of habitat by quarrying and pipeline 
installation projects has eradicated several populations. Other habitat 
alterations that are occurring across the species' range, with 
potential to destroy or negatively alter gladecress' habitat, include 
construction of well pads, buildings, roads, and poultry production 
facilities. A historic and ongoing major threat to Texas golden 
gladecress' habitat is the invasion by nonnative and native shrubs and 
trees into the formerly open-sun, herbaceous, glade vegetation 
communities. Grazing has been implicated as a habitat threat because it 
is often associated with the encroachment of undesirable vegetation 
into the outcrop habitat, and may lead to trampling of plants. 
Agricultural herbicide use has some potential to damage emerging 
gladecress seedlings. Severe and extended periods of drought, 
anticipated to increase with projected changes in the climate, may 
negatively affect a given year's reproductive effort by Texas golden 
gladecress. These factors will be discussed in more detail below.
Glauconite Quarrying (Mining)
    Glauconite, often called ``blue rock'' or ``green rock'' is used in 
San Augustine and Sabine Counties for road construction and maintenance 
by county road departments, the USDA Forest Service, and Louisiana 
Parishes (McGee 2011, pers. comm.). Glauconite has also been used by 
the oil and natural gas industry for roads and well pads, and demand by 
the oil and gas industry is high (McGee 2011, pers. comm.). Glauconite 
is also used as a component of fertilizer. A number of commercial 
glauconite quarries or mines were in production by 1997, and subsequent 
interest in its use grew because traditional pavement base materials 
historically used in this region (iron ore and limestone) were becoming 
harder to obtain and more expensive (Button and Little 1997, p. 14). A 
representative of one mining company with four quarries in the San 
Augustine and Sabine County area expressed an opinion that their mines 
were sustainable for 15 to 20 years at the current level of demand 
(McGee 2011, pers. comm.). We do not have a more quantified prediction 
regarding demand and existing supply; therefore, we

[[Page 55977]]

cannot accurately predict future quarry development. Selection of 
locations for glauconite quarries may target areas ``where the 
glauconite can be seen on the surface'' (outcrops), although quarries 
have also been dug on sites where the glauconite was not visible at the 
surface (McGee 2011, pers. comm.).
    The Nature Conservancy (TNC) (2003, p. 9) noted that glauconite 
quarrying (mining) in glades destroys habitat and is a significant 
threat to the Texas golden gladecress. The majority of known habitat 
was excavated at three of the eight historical populations (CCG Sites 
2, 6, and 8) between 1996 and 2011, resulting in open pits at the 
former habitat sites. The excavations removed all surface features 
required by the gladecress, as well as killing individual plants. 
Access to the Service has been denied at these sites, and we cannot 
determine if any habitat or plants remain on the periphery of the 
excavated quarries. The last recorded survey of plants at CCG Site 2 
was on March 18, 1988, when the gladecress plants were described as 
growing on the sloping Weches outcrop that was brush-hogged and burned 
in 1988. Using available high-altitude photography taken between 1995 
and 2009, supplemented with aerial photography from August 2010, it 
appears that the glade was still intact as of 1995-1996, but that a 
much larger area than the original population site was excavated by 
2005. As of 2010, the entire population site and surrounding area looks 
to be two large, side-by-side pits or ponds. We assume that the 
populations are extirpated at this location.
    The last information on plant numbers and conditions at the CCG 
Sites 6 and 8 was collected on March 19 and April 24, 1987. At that 
time, CCG Site 6 was recognized as the largest known viable population 
of Texas golden gladecress. At this site, the gladecress grew in a 
former pasture with thousands of fruiting plants in association with 
other native glade plants in shallow bedrock pockets. The CCG Site 8 
consisted of a very small population on a degraded Weches outcrop, with 
scattered plants in fruit. Both elements of occurrence appeared to be 
eliminated by a large, open-pit quarry in which digging started after 
1996, with the entire area being one large pit by 2009.
    The outcrops may actually attract glauconite quarrying interests 
since the presence of an outcrop indicates that glauconite is close to 
the surface. Glauconite mining can occur throughout the range of Texas 
golden gladecress and has the potential to eradicate populations at 
sites where quarries are dug. There is no requirement for permits, no 
review of projects, and locations of future quarries are unknown. Based 
on our review of the scientific information, we conclude that 
excavation of pits for removal of glauconite, and associated glauconite 
quarrying activities, pose a threat to the gladecress across the 
species' range.
Natural Gas and Oil Exploration and Production
    A principal threat to the habitat of Texas golden gladecress is the 
removal or destruction of habitat (outcrops and immediate surrounding 
land) by pipeline construction or from construction of buildings, well 
pads, or roads to access drilling sites directly over habitat. Natural 
gas pipeline installation requires trenching and clearing that can 
destroy all gladecress habitat and plants within the pipeline ROW. In 
addition to the destruction of habitat, excavation could conceivably 
alter the hydrology of gladecress sites if the lowered elevation of the 
excavation, or conversely, the increased ground elevation of a well pad 
or other structure, diminishes the amount of water that can move 
downslope over ground or through seeps. Adversely affecting the amount 
and timing of water delivery could render outcrop ledges uninhabitable 
for the species by interfering with the seeping or pooling action of 
water on which the species depends.
    The loss of habitat and plants in the footprint of well pads and 
roads built for natural gas or oil exploration and production is a 
continuing threat because there is high potential to affect remaining 
glade habitat throughout the species' range. Numerous wells can be seen 
from SH 21 between the cities of Nacogdoches and San Augustine, with at 
least 30 wells visible along a 20-mile stretch of this road (Loos 2011, 
pers. comm.; Rodewald 2011, pers. comm.). The materials brought in to 
construct well pads and roads can directly cover habitat and plants, 
causing partial or total loss of populations. Excavations, as well as 
construction activities, that occur upslope of gladecress populations 
may act to impede movement of water downslope, thereby interfering with 
seeping and pooling of water needed by Texas golden gladecress. Concern 
about the extent of this threat is elevated due to our lack of 
information about potential gladecress populations across the Weches 
Glades where surveys for the species have not been undertaken, but 
where natural gas exploration and production is rapidly proceeding.
    The entire known distribution of Texas golden gladecress is 
underlain by the Haynesville Shale formation (also known as the 
Haynesville/Bossier), recently recognized as a major natural gas source 
for the United States. The Haynesville Shale, located at a depth 
exceeding 11,000 ft (3,353 m), straddles the Texas-Louisiana border and 
almost 70 percent of its production is from wells located in Texas 
(Brathwaite 2009, p. 16). The Haynesville shale covers an area of 
approximately 9,000 square miles (23,310 square km). A June 2010 map 
shows the Haynesville Shale underlying the northwestern quarter of 
Sabine County, the entire northern half of San Augustine County, and 
the southeastern third of Nacogdoches County (Haynesville Shale Map 
2010). Estimates of the natural gas contained in this formation's 
reserves indicate that it could sustain anticipated energy needs for 
well beyond the next several decades (http://www.haynesvilleshalelandowners.org; Brathwaite 2009, p. 16). 
Technological improvements in exploration (3-dimensional seismic 
surveys), drilling (horizontal wells), and well completion and 
stimulation (hydrologic fracturing) have enhanced the productive 
capability of natural gas shales throughout the United States, 
including the Haynesville Shale.
    Natural gas exploration and production has been rapidly expanding 
within the Haynesville Shale, from the first significant production in 
2005 to major development of the formation in 2009 (Brathwaite 2009, p. 
16). Drilling activity over the entire Haynesville Shale peaked around 
2009 or 2010 when approximately 200 drilling rigs were active. As of 
September 18, 2011, approximately 130 rigs were actively drilling; the 
slowdown being attributed to depressed natural gas prices (Murphy 
2011a, p. 3). Even with natural gas prices down, most companies 
continue to drill one well per gas unit on the Haynesville Shale in 
order to maintain their leases (Murphy 2011a, p. 3). By September 2011, 
as many as 1,500 wells had been drilled with many more anticipated, 
along with perhaps another 10 years of active drilling on this 
formation (Murphyb 2011, pp. 2-3).
    The Texas Railroad Commission's (RRCs) online maps (available at 
(http://gis2.rrc.state.tx.us/public/startit.htm) indicate that natural 
gas (and some crude oil) gathering and transmission pipelines are found 
throughout Nacogdoches County. In San Augustine County, the majority of 
existing pipelines are located in the area north of SH 21 and west of 
the town of San Augustine, an area of high glade

[[Page 55978]]

occurrence. To the east of San Augustine, there are fewer pipelines, 
but, of those that are located in this area, several are large gas 
transmission lines. One of these big transmission lines lies directly 
adjacent to the historic CCG Site 7. Sabine County has several major 
interstate pipelines, but fewer gathering and other transmission lines 
than the other two counties, and no pipelines near the Sabine County 
gladecress site (Texas Railroad Commission 2011).
    The RRC regulates the oil and natural gas industry in the state of 
Texas. The RRC has detailed information on all existing pipelines, but 
the agency has no way to predict future routes for new pipelines or 
wells; they are limited to location data found within permit 
applications (Nunley 2011, pers. comm.). New pipelines, as well as ones 
for which routes are being determined, do not display on the RRC Web 
site, so although we are aware of the impact that pipeline excavations 
can have on Texas golden gladecress, we cannot tell where future 
pipelines may affect existing populations or suitable habitat.
    Loss of gladecress habitat and plants is inevitable if pipelines 
are routed directly through population sites. Pipeline installation 
requires clearing of a path for the pipeline, cutting a trench in which 
to lay the pipe, recovering of the trench, and restoring the ground's 
surface. Clearing pipeline pathways eliminates obstacles to 
construction (NaturalGas.Org., p. 2), which may include the rocky 
outcrops supporting the Texas golden gladecress. Bulldozing the 
pipeline path likely permanently removes these rocky ledges and other 
features, along with the gladecress plants and seedbed. After the pipe 
is put into the ground and the trench covered with soil, elevations are 
restored and the surface is revegetated, generally using Cynodon 
dactylon (coastal bermudagrass) in this region (Rodewald 2011, pers. 
comm.). The Simpson Farms population, located 6 mi (9.7 km) east of the 
city of Nacogdoches, was eliminated by a natural gas pipeline that was 
installed sometime between August 2010 and October 2011 (date of 
installation determined from comparison of successive years of aerial 
photography). At this site, the pipeline ROW was approximately 75 ft 
(23 m) wide and the entire area formerly occupied by the gladecress was 
covered with deposited sediment or piles of cleared brush (Cobb 2011, 
pers. comm.). Given the degree of clearing of the ROW and the adjacent 
dirt work, the known extent of habitat is now gone and the entire 
population has likely been extirpated (Cobb 2011, pers. comm.). The 
Chapel Hill population may also be affected by future pipeline 
construction; the route for a future pipeline was being surveyed in 
October 2011 (Cobb 2011, pers. comm.). Although this pipeline does not 
directly cross the very small population site between the pasture fence 
and the road, it does lie parallel to, and just inside of, the fence 
line in a pasture where gladecress habitat does exist (Singhurst 2012c, 
pers. comm., Singhurst 2012f, pers. comm.).
    The current trend over most natural gas shale formations is to 
drill multiple wells, when possible, and well pad sizes can vary 
accordingly. Well pad sizes in the San Augustine County area range from 
several acres to as large as 14 ac (5.67 ha), depending on the number 
of wells (Loos 2011, pers. comm.; Allen 2011b, pers. comm.). Although 
most oil and gas companies use existing roads, occasionally the 
companies need to build new roads, and in these cases the new routes 
may go through outcrop areas. The fill for pads and roads could cover 
portions of, or potentially entire, glade sites since some of the 
glades are so small. Placement of pads or roads upslope of gladecress 
sites may have the potential to affect downslope movement of water to 
outcrop sites (Ritter 2011b, pers. comm.).
    In summary, the remaining populations of Texas golden gladecress 
and suitable habitat are within areas that are actively being drilled 
for natural gas. Plants and habitat have been destroyed by the 
construction of pipelines. The three remaining populations as well as 
suitable habitat are at risk of being destroyed by construction of 
natural gas and oil infrastructure (pipelines, well pads, metering 
stations, and roads) that continue to be constructed throughout the 
species' range. Exploration and production of natural gas and oil is 
anticipated to continue in this area for at least the next decade. 
Texas golden gladecress and its habitat may be directly impacted by the 
construction of pipelines and other infrastructure, and indirectly by 
altering the hydrology near occupied sites and suitable habitat. Based 
on our review of the scientific information, we conclude that natural 
gas and oil development is a threat to Texas golden gladecress.
 Residential and Commercial Construction
    Although residential and commercial construction was listed in the 
species' candidate assessments as a potential threat, there is no 
evidence that this type of disturbance has affected Texas golden 
gladecress populations. Historically, site selection for building homes 
and businesses in the town of San Augustine may have taken advantage of 
the open aspect of the glades--Leavenworth described the area in which 
he originally collected the species (vicinity of the town of San 
Augustine) as ``prairies'' (Bridges 1988, p. II-5). However, 
information about former glades in the area is lacking, as is 
documentation that the gladecress was present where buildings are 
currently located. Neither San Augustine nor Sabine Counties are 
experiencing rapid human population growth--San Augustine County saw a 
0.9 percent decline in population from 8,946 to 8,865 between 2000 and 
2010 while Sabine County had a modest increase of 3.5 percent (10,469 
to 10,834) (U.S. Census Bureau 2010a,b), suggesting that residential 
and associated commercial development does not constitute a high level 
of threat to habitat throughout the species' range.
    Proliferation of poultry farms was also listed as a potential 
threat to Texas golden gladecress habitat. Building poultry production 
houses and associated facilities would cover gladecress habitat in the 
same manner as would residential or other types of commercial 
construction. Aerial photography from November 2011 (Google Earth, 
November 17, 2011) shows 21 poultry farms within the gladecress' range 
(the approximate zone of the Weches Formation) in Sabine and San 
Augustine Counties. Of the 21 total, 18 are located on the San 
Augustine County Weches Formation. None of the existing farms is 
adjacent to any of the known population locations, and we are unable to 
determine if any gladecress habitat or plants were lost when these 
production facilities were built. Among the characteristics in East 
Texas that make a site desirable for poultry production are long, flat 
stretches of ground with a good, solid hardpan as opposed to rocky 
outcrops on slopes, the tops of ridges, or in low-lying areas (Ritter 
2012, pers. comm.), such as those occupied by the gladecress. This 
site-selection preference means that poultry producers would most 
likely avoid gladecress habitat. In the last 2 years, most of the 
poultry farm construction has taken place in counties north of San 
Augustine and Sabine, and the only activity in the Weches Formation 
zone has been renovations to existing farms (Ritter 2012, pers. comm.). 
The construction of poultry farms is not considered a threat to Texas 
golden gladecress because poultry farm site selection does not appear 
to have significant overlap with gladecress habitat.

[[Page 55979]]

Roads
    The portion of the CCG Site 1 population that occurred in the SH 
ROW was impacted when Sunrise Road was widened and straightened in the 
1990's (Singhurst 2012g, pers. comm.); however, not all plants were 
destroyed. A 2011 list of TxDOT planned projects does not show any 
future road improvements or expansions near known gladecress population 
sites. Based on the best available information, we conclude that new 
road construction or improvements to the existing roads does not pose a 
threat to the gladecress at the three extant sites.
Invasive Species
    A major stressor to the habitat of Texas golden gladecress is the 
ongoing invasion of nonnative and native shrubs and trees into the 
formerly open-sun, herbaceous, glade vegetation communities. This 
woody, weedy plant invasion is occurring on at least a portion of all 
three remaining population sites. Additionally, the historic CCG Site 7 
appears, from 2010 aerial photography, to be almost 100 percent 
overgrown with woody vegetation.
    Glades in most parts of the United States are declining due to 
grazing, fire suppression, and the subsequent invasion by woody 
vegetation. In presettlement times, glades were maintained by periodic 
fires and browsing of woody vegetation by white-tailed deer (Odocoileus 
virginianus) and elk (Cervus canadensis). This natural disturbance 
regime changed over the last century due to active fire suppression and 
diminished numbers of browsers reduced by hunting pressure (Rossiter 
1995, p. 2). Although the harsh environment of glades helps to preclude 
tree establishment, without disturbance such as fire, woody plants will 
invade (Hartman 2005, p. 4). The exclusion of fire has allowed 
encroachment of trees, shrubs, vines, and other woody plants into glade 
communities (Borland 2008, p. 3).
    As woody plants mature, they produce canopies that reduce the 
amount of sunlight reaching the ground. Sun-loving plants like Texas 
golden gladecress that are adapted to hot, dry sites do not tolerate 
shade well. Research conducted in Missouri's cedar glades showed that 
herbaceous plant production rapidly declined when red cedar cover 
exceeded more than one third of a glade's area (Rossiter 1995, p. 3). A 
combination of reduced sunlight (shading) and increased leaf litter can 
act to suppress herbaceous species (Hartman 2005, p. 2). These types of 
changes in glades that were historically hot and dry can contribute to 
cooling of the ground and enhancing of moisture content. Wetter, cooler 
conditions during traditionally hot, dry summer months may be counter-
productive for sun-loving glade species by encouraging invasion by cool 
season vegetation and exotic species. Buildup of a deeper organic layer 
can also facilitate the establishment of woody plants that results in 
further shading of the ground (Hartman 2005, p. 2).
    Invading species can also compete directly with Texas golden 
gladecress for water and nutrients. Interspecific competition has been 
noted as potentially causing reduction in the extent of the root system 
in several small outcrop plant species, thereby reducing their nutrient 
uptake (Baskin and Baskin 1988, p. 836). Shading further stresses the 
herbaceous layer, including the gladecress. In Missouri, stressed glade 
communities were more prone to invasion from invasive species like 
Schedonorus phoenix (tall fescue), Sericea lespedeza (Chinese 
bushclover), and Rosa multiflora (multiflora rose) (Hartman 2005, p. 
4). On Texas' Weches Glades, Carr (2005) reported tall fescue at the 
Chapel Hill site, and Macartney rose was listed as a major invading 
species in pastures throughout the range of Texas golden gladecress. 
The Weches outcrops that parallel SH 21 appear to support the heaviest 
Macartney rose infestation in San Augustine County (Ritter 2011a, pers. 
comm.). A 1995 report by the Service's Clear Lake Ecological Services' 
Field Office described known white bladderpod sites, including several 
with gladecress, all of which needed active management to preclude 
invasion by woody shrubs (Nemec 1996, p. 1).
    Texas golden gladecress habitat has been documented since the 
1980's to be affected by an accelerated succession from open herbaceous 
Weches outcrops to dense shrub thickets and closed canopy woodlands 
(USFWS 1992, p. 7; Carr 2005, p. 2; Nemec 1996, p. 4). The most serious 
invaders are included in Table 5. Encroachment of these species is 
thought to suppress the less competitive components of the community 
like Texas golden gladecress and white bladderpod (TNC 2003, p. 4). 
Some of these invasive species can grow on the shallow outcrop soils, 
while others can invade open space around the edges of the outcrop 
ledges (USFWS 1992, p. 7). Some of the native invading species are 
likely controlled by occasional wildfire under natural conditions. More 
serious are the introduced invaders, including the small hop clover 
that can cover Weches outcrops and eliminate other vegetation. The 
introduced shrubs, including Macartney rose and Japanese honeysuckle, 
will invade open space, including gladecress habitat (USFWS 1992, p. 
7).

   Table 5--Primary Invasive Species Found in Texas Golden Gladecress
                                 Habitat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Scientific name                        Common name
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Nonnative Species             ...............................
Rosa bracteata.........................  Macartney rose
Lonicera japonica......................  Japanese honeysuckle
Stellaria media........................  chick-weed
Bromus japonicus.......................  Japanese brome
Kummerowia striata.....................  Japanese bush-clover
Ligustrum japonicum....................  Japanese privet
Meliotus indicus.......................  sour clover
Cynodon dactylon.......................  coastal bermudagrass
Trifolium dubium.......................  small hop clover
             Native Species
Andropogon virginicus..................  broomsedge
Plantago virginica.....................  pale-seeded plantain
Euphorbia sp...........................  spurge
Frangula caroliniana...................  Carolina buckthorn
Rhamnus lanceolata.....................  lanceleaf buckthorn
Crataegus monogyna.....................  hawthorn
Prunus mexicana........................  Mexican plum

[[Page 55980]]

 
Viburnum prunifolium...................  blackhaw viburnum
Rhus glabra............................  smooth sumac
Ulmus alata............................  winged elm
Berchemia scandens.....................  Alabama supplejack
Cissus incisa..........................  ivy treebine
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The three extant Texas golden gladecress sites have shrubs and 
trees encroaching into formerly open glade habitat. At the Chapel Hill 
site, Carr (2005, p. 2) noted that 13 scattered pines within a 6,000-
square-foot (557-square-meter) area produced a total canopy coverage of 
less than 10 percent of site, but indicated that future shading effects 
when the pine trees reach maturity, might prove detrimental. At this 
same site, other woody plants were controlled, but not eliminated, by 
regular shredding (Carr 2005, p. 2).
    Texas golden gladecress does show some ability to persist at sites 
that have been overrun by woody vegetation. At the Geneva site, the 
area with the gladecress was bulldozed, and although the site was 
reported as destroyed, the species reappeared within several years. At 
the Chapel Hill site, brush removal actions to benefit white bladderpod 
also resulted in the reappearance of the gladecress after its apparent 
absence for 10 years. This suggests that the gladecress' seed bank may 
be able to remain viable over extended time periods even though the 
habitat is overgrown by woody species.
    Nonnative and native woody species, including woody shrubs, vines, 
and trees, continue to degrade Texas golden gladecress' habitat across 
the species' entire range. This threat is significant for the species 
because it is ubiquitous and has led to declines, or disappearance as 
in the Chapel Hill site, in the gladecress populations, along with 
altering its habitat. Based on our review of the scientific 
information, we conclude that invasion of woody and weedy nonnative and 
native plants into gladecress habitat is a threat across its range.
Habitat Damage Associated With Grazing
    Grazing has been implicated as a habitat threat because it can 
facilitate the encroachment of undesirable vegetation into the outcrop 
habitat, and because it may lead to trampling of plants and soil 
compaction. Historically, the introduction of grazing livestock into 
East Texas, coupled with heavy grazing pressure, adversely impacted 
glade sites by facilitating the spread of invasive woody plants, and 
potentially trampling native plants. Acting in concert with fire 
suppression, heavy grazing pressure may have accelerated conversion of 
the grassy prairies and herbaceous glades to the dense, thorny masses 
of vegetation seen at many sites today (Nemec 1996, p. 4; USFWS 1992, 
p. 7). Overgrazing of Texas golden gladecress' habitat can promote 
invasion by woody species and enhance competition on the glade from 
herbaceous weeds like pale-seeded plantain, Japanese brome, and spurge 
(USFWS 1992, p. 7). Grazing livestock serve as a source of introduced 
species' seeds as well as supplying nutrients for competitive native 
weedy species. Grazing animals can also encourage unpalatable invasive 
species like Macartney rose to move into areas where more preferred 
natives have been grazed out (Bridges 1988, p. II-35). The negative 
impacts to gladecress habitat from woody plant invasion are detailed in 
the ``Invasive Species'' section.
    There is no documentation of gladecress plants being lost due to 
trampling. Potential does exist for this to happen, for example, at the 
Geneva Site, where gladecress plants have been observed growing 
directly adjacent to and inside the fence where a cow trail is evident. 
Loss of plants in this small area has not been confirmed and the larger 
part of this population grows in the SH 21 ROW where no grazing takes 
place, so it is unlikely that trampling at this site truly constitutes 
a threat. Grazing also occurs within the fenced private portions of the 
other two remaining gladecress population sites (CCG Site 1 and Chapel 
Hill), where individual plants may be subject to trampling if they are 
growing directly in cattle trails.
    Grazing does occur on portions of the three extant population 
sites, but we do not have information to show that grazing has 
destroyed Texas golden gladecress habitat or plants. Based on our 
review of the scientific information, we conclude that the direct 
effects of grazing are not a threat to Texas golden gladecress.
Land Conversion for Agriculture and Silviculture
    Another potential habitat threat is conversion of Weches Glade 
outcrops to nonnative grass pastures or conversion of existing pasture 
lands that may contain viable outcrops to pine tree plantations. Over 
the last 200 years, most of the native vegetation communities of East 
Texas were dramatically altered by human activities as the region was 
logged and extensively cultivated (Diggs et al. 2006, p. 76). Due to 
widespread land use changes throughout the entire range of the 
gladecress, and the fact that the glade areas were always somewhat 
small and surrounded by forest, there is a high likelihood that some 
glades were negatively affected by past agricultural and silvicultural 
land cover conversions (USFWS 1992, p. 7). At least one gladecress 
population was described as being lost to this type of land use change 
during the 1980's (Turner unpubl. data in TNC 2003, p. 2).
    Conversion of native vegetation communities to pasture or row crop 
in the region is much less common now. The Weches outcrops are not 
considered desirable substrate for planting to pasture as landowners 
are not interested in deep plowing, breaking up, or dragging out rocks 
(Ritter 2011a, pers. comm.). The ``Redland'' soils that are exposed in 
the Weches outcrops are thin and rocky. The Natural Resource 
Conservation Service (NRCS) recommends avoiding these soils because 
there are not practical conservation practices for these types of sites 
(Ritter 2011a, pers. comm.). The more prevalent land use change now is 
from pasture to tree plantation (Ritter 2011a, pers. comm.). Within the 
last few years, many Sabine and San Augustine County landowners have 
shifted from grazing to timber planting (Ritter 2011a, pers. comm.). 
Most timber planting consists of Pinus taeda (loblolly pine) and Pinus 
palustris (longleaf pine); planted on 8-10 ft (2.4-3 m) centers. 
Although landowners will likely avoid planting directly onto Weches 
outcrops because these rocky soils will not support trees, it is 
conceivable that the spacing between plantings would allow

[[Page 55981]]

trees to be planted near the edges of outcrops (Ritter 2011a, pers. 
comm., Ritter 2012, pers. comm.). As these trees mature, their canopies 
may potentially cause shading problems on glade areas (see Invasive 
Species Section for explanation of negative effects of shading). For 
example, it appears that former habitat adjacent to the Chapel Hill 
site may be planted, in part, to rows of trees.
    In addition to shading, pine tree plantings may also result in 
production of large amounts of pine needle litter that could accumulate 
in small glade openings near the trees. Where a mid-story of trees 
develops, light may be blocked from reaching the ground level by upper-
canopy and mid-story shading; with a subsequent build-up of leaf 
litter, the herbaceous species can be suppressed. In the face of fire 
suppression, Missouri glades became choked with litter that kept the 
ground more moist and cool, leading to replacement of the sun-loving 
natives by invading cool-season vegetation and exotic species (Hartman 
(2005, pp. 2-4).
    Based on our review of the scientific information, we conclude that 
planting of pine tree plantations, if in close proximity to occupied 
glade openings, can constitute a threat to Texas golden gladecress.
Herbicide Use
    The candidate assessments for Texas golden gladecress list 
herbicide use in highway ROWs and for agricultural purposes as a 
potential threat to the species because of the plant's occurrence 
within highway ROW's and in pastures. Herbicide use to maintain highway 
and county road ROW's has the potential to destroy the small 
subpopulations that exist in the TxDOT ROW's at the Geneva and CCG 1 
sites. If timing of the herbicide application coincides with the 
growing and reproductive period of the year for the gladecress, all 
individuals that are growing in the ROW might potentially be extirpated 
if the herbicide contacts all gladecress individuals in these small 
sites. Herbicide exposure from highway and county road maintenance 
would affect only a small portion of two extant sites, and recent 
information suggests that use of herbicides for state and county roads 
in this area is not a widespread practice (Adams 2011b, pers. comm.; 
Hunter 2011, pers. comm.). We do not have documentation of negative 
impacts to the species from herbicide applications for road 
maintenance. The TxDOT uses herbicides only on an ``as needed'' basis 
to eliminate encroaching woody plants or along the edges of the road 
pavement (Adams 2011b, pers. comm.). San Augustine County does not use 
herbicides for county roadside maintenance due to costs (Hunter 2011, 
pers. comm.).
    With regard to agricultural herbicide use in San Augustine and 
Sabine Counties, the NRCS has a program to assist landowners with 
Macartney rose control using Grazon[supreg] P+D herbicide. This program 
involves a 3-year approach--broadcast spraying from a tractor during 
the first 2 years, followed by individual plant treatments in the third 
year. Grazon[supreg] P+D has active ingredients of picloram and 2,4-D 
(dichlor) and can persist in some soils for months and act as a 
preemergent, killing germinating seedlings. In an appendix to TNC's 
Conservation Area Plan for the San Augustine Glades (TNC 2003, pp. 30-
31), it is one of several herbicides identified as potentially harmful 
to the gladecress and white bladderpod if used near their habitats. 
Management recommendations included avoiding use of this herbicide 
within 200 yards (yd) (183 m) of areas described as habitat within the 
region, along with limiting timing of use to spot treatments only July 
1-August 30. Because Macartney rose is infesting the region of the 
Weches outcrops, and since this exotic invader is capable of 
establishing itself in Weches Glades and has been noted as occurring at 
gladecress population sites, it is reasonable to assume that some areas 
of glade habitat are included in these treatment programs. So although 
control of Macartney rose would likely benefit the gladecress in the 
long term, application of a preemergent herbicide has the potential to 
eliminate the gladecress altogether if it stays in the soil long enough 
to kill emerging seedlings. We have no evidence that this type of 
application has affected Texas golden gladecress populations to date.
    Based on our review of the scientific information, we conclude that 
using preemergent herbicides such as Grazon P+D that persist in the 
soil for brush control could constitute a threat to Texas golden 
gladecress emerging seedlings.
Climate Change
    Our analyses under the Endangered Species Act include consideration 
of ongoing and projected changes in climate. The terms ``climate'' and 
``climate change'' are defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change (IPCC). The term ``climate'' refers to the mean and 
variability of different types of weather conditions over time, with 30 
years being a typical period for such measurements, although shorter or 
longer periods also may be used (IPCC 2007a, p. 78). The term ``climate 
change'' thus refers to a change in the mean or variability of one or 
more measures of climate (e.g., temperature or precipitation) that 
persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer, whether 
the change is due to natural variability, human activity, or both (IPCC 
2007a, p. 78).
    Scientific measurements spanning several decades demonstrate that 
changes in climate are occurring, and that the rate of change has been 
faster since the 1950s. Examples include warming of the global climate 
system, and substantial increases in precipitation in some regions of 
the world and decreases in other regions. For these and other examples, 
see IPCC 2007a, p. 30 and Solomon et al. 2007, pp. 35-54, 82-85. 
Results of scientific analyses presented by the IPCC show that most of 
the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid-20th 
century cannot be explained by natural variability in climate, and is 
``very likely'' (defined by the IPCC as 90 percent or higher 
probability) due to the observed increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) 
concentrations in the atmosphere as a result of human activities, 
particularly carbon dioxide emissions from use of fossil fuels (IPCC 
2007a, pp. 5-6 and figures SPM.3 and SPM.4; Solomon et al. 2007, pp. 
21-35). Further confirmation of the role of GHGs comes from analyses by 
Huber and Knutti (2011, p. 4), who concluded it is extremely likely 
that approximately 75 percent of global warming since 1950 has been 
caused by human activities.
    Scientists use a variety of climate models, which include 
consideration of natural processes and variability, as well as various 
scenarios of potential levels and timing of GHG emissions, to evaluate 
the causes of changes already observed and to project future changes in 
temperature and other climate conditions (e.g., Meehl et al. 2007, 
entire; Ganguly et al. 2009, pp. 11555, 15558; Prinn et al. 2011, pp. 
527, 529). All combinations of models and emissions scenarios yield 
very similar projections of increases in the most common measure of 
climate change, average global surface temperature (commonly known as 
global warming), until about 2030. Although projections of the 
magnitude and rate of warming differ after about 2030, the overall 
trajectory of all the projections is one of increased global warming 
through the end of this century, even for the projections based on 
scenarios that assume that GHG emissions will stabilize or decline. 
Thus, there is strong scientific support for projections that

[[Page 55982]]

warming will continue through the 21st century, and that the magnitude 
and rate of change will be influenced substantially by the extent of 
GHG emissions (IPCC 2007a, pp. 44-45; Meehl et al. 2007, pp. 760-764 
and 797-811; Ganguly et al. 2009, pp. 15555-15558; Prinn et al. 2011, 
pp. 527, 529). (See IPCC 2007b, p. 8, for a summary of other global 
projections of climate-related changes, such as frequency of heat waves 
and changes in precipitation. Also see IPCC 2011 (entire) for a summary 
of observations and projections of extreme climate events.)
    Various changes in climate may have direct or indirect effects on 
species. These effects may be positive, neutral, or negative, and they 
may change over time, depending on the species and other relevant 
considerations, such as interactions of climate with other variables 
(e.g., habitat fragmentation) (IPCC 2007a, pp. 8-14, 18-19). 
Identifying likely effects often involves aspects of climate change 
vulnerability analysis. Vulnerability refers to the degree to which a 
species (or system) is susceptible to, and unable to cope with, adverse 
effects of climate change, including climate variability and extremes. 
Vulnerability is a function of the type, magnitude, and rate of climate 
change and variation to which a species is exposed, its sensitivity, 
and its adaptive capacity (IPCC 2007a, p. 89; see also Glick et al. 
2011, pp. 19-22). There is no single method for conducting such 
analyses that applies to all situations (Glick et al. 2011, p. 3). We 
use our expert judgment and appropriate analytical approaches to weigh 
relevant information, including uncertainty, in our consideration of 
various aspects of climate change.
    As is the case with all stressors that we assess, even if we 
conclude that a species is currently affected or is likely to be 
affected in a negative way by one or more climate-related impacts, it 
does not necessarily follow that the species meets the definition of an 
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species'' under the Act. If a 
species is listed as endangered or threatened, knowledge regarding the 
vulnerability of the species to, and known or anticipated impacts from, 
climate-associated changes in environmental conditions can be used to 
help devise appropriate strategies for its recovery.
    The climate in Texas has shown a long-term gradual warming trend--
pollen, plant macrofossils (fossils large enough to be seen without a 
microscope), packrat middens (ancient ``garbage piles'' left by rodents 
in the genus Neotoma), and other evidence show substantial climate 
changes in Texas over the past 15,000 years (end of the last glacial 
period) when the mean annual air temperature was 
9[emsp14][deg]Farenheit (F) (5 [deg]Centigrade ([deg]C)) cooler than 
present (Diggs et al. 2006, p. 73). The Texas climate is considered 
highly variable with seasonal precipitation patterns that dramatically 
increase from west to east, and temperatures that increase from north 
to south (Nielsen-Gammon 2008, p.1). Climate models predict increased 
temperatures, and concurrent increased evapotranspiration, and 
decreased regular precipitation and soil moisture in Texas (Diggs et 
al. 2006, p. 73.), all of which would have negative implications for 
Texas golden gladecress. Based on a climate model developed by the 
United Kingdom Hadley Center (HadCM2), temperatures in Texas could 
increase by 3[emsp14][deg]F (1.7 [deg]C) in spring (range of 1-
6[emsp14][deg]F (0.6-3.3 [deg]C)) and about 4[emsp14][deg]F (2.2 
[deg]C) in other seasons (with range of 1-9[emsp14][deg]F (0.6-5 
[deg]C)).
    Droughts are not uncommon in Texas (Texas Water Resources Institute 
2011, pp. 1-13). The most severe drought recorded in Texas occurred in 
the 1950's, and in the last 15 years there have been widespread 
droughts: In 1996, 1999-2000, 2005-2006, 2007, 2010-2011 (Texas Water 
Resources Institute 2011, pp. 10-12). Projections are for winter 
precipitation to decrease by 5-30 percent although it may increase by 
10 percent in other seasons (Environmental Protection Agency 1997, p. 
2).
    East Texas is subtropical with a wide range of extremes in weather 
(Diggs et al 2006, p. 65). Mean annual temperatures range from 
70[emsp14][deg]F (21 [deg]C) in the south to approximately 
64[emsp14][deg]F (18 [deg]C) in the north, although extremes like 
0[emsp14][deg]F (-18 [deg]C) and 110[emsp14][deg]F (43 [deg]C) are 
observed occasionally. The highest reported eastern Texas temperature 
was 118[emsp14][deg]F (48 [deg]C) in Collin County in 1936 (Bomar 1995 
in Diggs et al. 2006, p. 65). Average rainfall ranges from 60 in (152 
cm) at the State's southeastern border to 40 in (98 c) at the western 
edge. These rainfall differences are related to proximity to the warm, 
moist air supplied by the Gulf of Mexico. The native vegetation of this 
region evolved with, and is adapted to, recurrent extremes (Diggs et 
al. 2006, p. 67). That said, the Pineywoods region is vulnerable to 
even small climatic shifts because it is ``balanced'' on the eastern 
edge of a dramatic precipitation gradient. Temperature increases that 
are projected in climate change scenarios will likely be associated 
with increases in transpiration and more frequent summer droughts. 
Decreased rainfall may result in an eastward shift in the forest 
boundary and replacement of the Pineywoods forest with scrubland (Diggs 
et al. 2006, p. 80). There is potential for loss of species that are 
limited to mesic conditions of deep East Texas, such as the hardwood 
forests surrounding the Weches Glades. There may also be a northerly 
shift of southerly species based on climate models that predict 
increasing temperatures and, therefore, increasing evapotranspiration 
and decreasing regional precipitation and soil moisture (Diggs et al. 
2006, p. 73).
    Although East Texas has typically received a greater amount of 
precipitation during December through March than other regions 
(Neilsen-Gammon, p. 24), future precipitation trends indicate a 
decrease in precipitation toward the middle of the 21st century 
(Nielsen-Gammon, p. 28). The timing of this precipitation is crucial 
for the Texas golden gladecress, which is dependent on late-fall-
through-spring moisture to generate the seeps and pooling that it 
requires for germination, growth, and reproduction. Reproduction is 
known to be negatively impacted by drought as evidenced by declines of 
91 to 67 plants at the Chapel Hill site and 490 to 96 plants at the CCG 
Site 1 during the 1999-2000 droughts (USFWS 2010b, p. 5; Singhurst 
2011a, pers. comm.). It is unknown how the gladecress will respond to 
continued years of drought, especially when combined with other 
threats.
    A warmer climate with more frequent droughts, but also extreme 
precipitation events, may adversely affect Texas golden gladecress by 
altering the glade habitat the species is known to occupy. It may also 
improve habitat conditions for invasive plant species and other plants 
(USFWS 2010b, p. 5). Climate extremes, especially drought and low 
temperatures, probably play a bigger role in excluding nonadapted 
species than average conditions will (Diggs et al. 2006, p. 80). 
Because the gladecress is a habitat specialist, being closely tied to 
the geology and soils on the Weches outcrops, it seems unlikely that 
this species will be flexible in terms of shifting to new habitats if 
the glades become unsuitable due to lack of winter-spring moisture. 
Also, if conditions shift in favor of nonnatives, the gladecress will 
likely be negatively affected. Although the gladecress has survived 
cycles of drought in the past, as well as some years with extraordinary 
temperature shifts, it may have done so in a landscape where it was 
more abundant and with populations distributed in closer proximity to 
one another. Based on our review, the best

[[Page 55983]]

scientific and commercial information did not provide us with 
information regarding the species' seedbank so we do not know how many 
consecutive years of poor conditions (in terms of low rainfall and high 
temperatures) the species can survive.
    We lack firm predictions for future patterns of precipitation and 
temperature that are specific to East Texas. While it appears 
reasonable to assume that climate change will occur within the range of 
Texas golden gladecress, at this time we do not have information to 
indicate specifically how climate change may affect the species or its 
habitat. However, we do know from recent records that frequent and 
sustained droughts have resulted in declines, at least in the short 
term, in the remaining populations.
Other Conservation Efforts
    Texas golden gladecress has benefitted to a limited degree from its 
co-occurrence at some sites with the federally listed white bladderpod. 
Management activities (brush clearing) carried out in 1995 at the 
Chapel Hill site for the white bladderpod resulted in a return of the 
gladecress after a 10-year absence (Nemec 1996, p. 5). However, 
nonnative shrubs quickly reinvaded the site, and repeated maintenance 
was needed. The landowner at this site has continued to mow at least 
once per year, keeping the habitat relatively open (Singhurst 2012f, 
pers. comm.), and the gladecress and bladderpod continue to occupy this 
site. A Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program project involving 
restoration of habitat (brush clearing) and planting of white 
bladderpod was planned to benefit both species although the gladecress 
has not been detected at the site to date.
    The Service funded several projects with TNC, including one that 
provided for 3 years of status surveys for gladecress and bladderpod. 
These were completed in 2006 and were the sole source of population 
numbers for these species for several years. The TNC also identified a 
total of 44 potential sites for both plant species using GIS data 
(aerial, geology, and hydrology sources) and obtained permission to 
visit 14 of them, but found little Weches habitat and no new gladecress 
populations (Turner 2003, p. 4).
    In the early 2000's, the Service collaborated with Mercer Arboretum 
and other partners, including TNC and the Pineywoods Native Plant 
Center at Stephen F. Austin State University in Nacogdoches, Texas, to 
collect gladecress seeds for cultivation, research, and long-term 
storage, and as seed sources for reintroduction work. Seeds were kept 
by Mercer Arboretum for long-term storage as well as germination and 
cultivation work. Nothing has been done recently with gladecress 
research or reintroduction efforts. The species was successfully 
introduced into apparently appropriate habitat in Nacogdoches County at 
a site located approximately 30 mi (48 km) west of its historic range 
in the late 1980's, where it grew and reproduced through 2011 when it 
was eradicated by construction of a pipeline. The success of this 
reintroduction project may bode well for future efforts to increase the 
numbers of populations by reintroductions or introductions to new 
sites.
Summary of Factor A
    The highest levels of threat to Texas golden gladecress are the 
loss and degradation of habitat. Specifically, surface quarrying of 
glauconite and the exploration and development of oil and natural gas 
wells and associated roads and pipelines have destroyed 50 percent of 
the known populations between the mid 1990's and 2011. These threats 
are likely to continue since glauconite is currently in demand for road 
bed, well pad construction, and for fertilizer, and development of the 
natural gas-bearing Haynesville Shale, which underlies the entire range 
of Texas golden gladecress, has been very rapid during the last several 
years. Portions of two extant populations extend into SH ROW's where 
TxDOT has the ability to provide some protections. Nevertheless, much 
of the species' potential habitat throughout the range occurs on 
private lands that, due to lack of access, have not been surveyed; 
therefore, the current level of threats across these lands cannot be 
assessed. Surface quarrying of glauconite and oil and gas development 
pose significant threats to the known extant populations and associated 
habitats of the gladecress.
    Texas golden gladecress also faces threats throughout its range 
from competition for light and nutrients from both native and nonnative 
invasive woody plants, including the nonnative Macartney rose. We have 
determined that the extant populations will decline or become 
extirpated unless they are periodically maintained to remove invading 
trees and shrubs. Additionally, herbicides used to control Macartney 
rose may be a threat to the gladecress if applied or persisting in the 
soil during the species' period of growth, from fall through early 
summer.
    A recent, ongoing trend in local land use is the conversion of open 
pasture to pine plantations. We found no evidence that grazing and 
trampling by livestock may be a threat to the species, and we believe 
that pastures provide suitable habitat for the sun-loving gladecress. 
However, densely planted pine trees may degrade the species' habitat 
due to competition for light and nutrients, and by contributing masses 
of leaf litter onto formerly sparsely vegetated glades.
    Finally, the information regarding climate change is not yet 
specific enough for us to determine the potential long-term effects to 
the gladecress habitat. However, long-term drought has negatively 
affected and will likely continue to negatively affect the reproduction 
and germination of gladecress seeds. Therefore, we conclude that Texas 
golden gladecress faces significant threats from habitat loss, 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species' habitat or 
range.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    Limited collection of gladecress has occurred for scientific 
purposes; only voucher specimens and several seed collection events are 
documented. Dr. Elray Nixon collected seed in 1987 and successfully 
created a new population when he introduced the seed onto an outcrop in 
Nacogdoches County. The Mercer Arboretum, a participating institution 
in the Center for Plant Conservation, collected seed in 2001--
maintaining some in long-term storage and planting some in germination 
trials. There are no records of any collections of seeds or other plant 
materials in the last few years. Because these collections were 
limited, we do not believe that this activity constituted a threat to 
the species. There is no information to suggest that Texas golden 
gladecress is collected for commercial, recreational, or educational 
purposes, and we have no reason to believe that this factor will become 
a threat to the species in the future. Therefore, based on our review 
of the best available scientific and commercial information, we 
conclude that collection or overutilization of Texas golden gladecress 
is not a threat to the species.

C. Disease or Predation

    There is no available information regarding disease in Texas golden 
gladecress. There is no information regarding predation by wildlife on 
the species. Grazing is ongoing across the range of the gladecress and 
occurs on portions of all extant population sites; however, there is no 
information to document that cattle eat gladecress. No studies have 
been conducted to investigate the effect of grazing or

[[Page 55984]]

herbivory specifically on Texas golden gladecress. George (1987, p. 17) 
studied the herbaceous flora of three Weches outcrops in San Augustine 
County and saw little grazing within his study plots although cattle 
were present at all three sites. Therefore, based on our review of the 
best available scientific and commercial information, we conclude that 
disease and predation on Texas golden gladecress, including predation 
associated with grazing, are not threats to the species.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    Under this factor, we examine whether existing regulatory 
mechanisms are inadequate to address the threats to the species 
discussed under the other factors. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act 
requires the Service to take into account ``those efforts, if any, 
being made by any State or foreign nation, or any political subdivision 
of a State or foreign nation, to protect such species * * * .'' In 
relation to Factor D under the Act, we interpret this language to 
require the Service to consider relevant Federal, State, and tribal 
laws, regulations, and other such mechanisms that may minimize any of 
the threats we describe in threat analyses under the other four 
factors, or otherwise enhance conservation of the species. We give 
strongest weight to statutes and their implementing regulations and to 
management direction that stems from those laws and regulations. An 
example would be State governmental actions enforced under a State 
statute or constitution, or Federal action under statute.
    Having evaluated the significance of the threat as mitigated by any 
such conservation efforts, we analyze under Factor D the extent to 
which existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to address the 
specific threats to the species. Regulatory mechanisms, if they exist, 
may reduce or eliminate the impacts from one or more identified 
threats. In this section, we review existing State and Federal 
regulatory mechanisms to determine whether they effectively reduce or 
remove threats to the Texas golden gladecress.
    The greatest threats to the gladecress include loss of habitat and 
the plants themselves due to actions that remove the substrate under 
the populations or that cover them up. These types of actions have been 
associated with quarrying of glauconite; construction related to 
natural gas and oil exploration and production; conversion of native 
glades or pastures with glades and outcrops to other land uses, most 
recently planting to pine plantations; and potentially herbicide 
applications for purposes of controlling the invasive Macartney rose. 
State and Federal regulations that might help conserve rare species on 
State highway ROWs, including avoidance or minimization of habitat 
destruction, as well as regulations that would protect plants from 
herbicide applications, are requirements only for already listed 
species; therefore, these regulations do not apply to gladecress. 
Likewise, no existing regulations protect the species on privately 
owned land, where most of the remnant gladecress is found.
    Currently, Texas golden gladecress is not protected by State or 
Federal laws. All of the populations occur on private property, and 
portions of those populations extend onto SH ROWs. As such, there are 
no regulatory mechanisms in place to address the threats to the 
species.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

Small Population Size
    The Texas golden gladecress remains in only three small 
populations. Small populations can be prone to extirpation, especially 
if a series of drought years greatly reduces seed production and 
depletes the soil seed bank. The Service (1992, p. 8) noted that for a 
species like the white bladderpod, with only small populations and wide 
natural annual fluctuations in plant numbers, as well as fragmented 
habitat across its range, recolonization after a population loss would 
require long-distance seed dispersal. Although we have no information 
regarding the gladecress' seed dispersal patterns or distances, we do 
know that the gladecress' habitat is exceedingly fragmented, with fewer 
and smaller known populations than the bladderpod, and further 
distances between populations. This makes the prospects for 
recolonization after a potential loss of a gladecress population very 
remote.
    Small populations can also be prone to extirpation from a single 
adverse natural or manmade event. The population at the Chapel Hill 
site is a good example of this vulnerability. Carr (2005, p. 2) 
reported that Texas golden gladecress habitat was extremely limited at 
Chapel Hill and that the numbers of gladecress plants would also always 
be restricted by the small size of the available habitat. He concluded 
that the population was so small that a single adverse event could 
extirpate the species from this location. The small population size and 
the small number of extant populations of gladecress increases each 
population's vulnerability to the significant threats listed in Factor 
A. Low numbers of plants, confined to very small areas, can be totally 
eradicated by actions such as installation of pipelines, excavation of 
mines, or construction of well pads, roads, or other types of 
construction. The remaining gladecress occurrences are so small that 
they can fall completely within the footprint of one well pad, or even 
within the width of a pipeline excavation. Small population size also 
increases the risk of total loss of populations due to contact with 
herbicides or shading and leaf litter accumulation from pine tree 
plantings because these threats are likely to affect the entirety of 
any given occurrence. Sustained drought may reduce the reproductive 
effort of a population, and this can lead to an overall decrease in 
fitness for the remaining populations. Reduced reproductive effort 
affects the seed bank, which represents the reproductive capacity of 
each gladecress population. The combined effects of drought, impacts 
from oil and gas development, herbicide treatment, shading, and 
competition place the remaining three populations at a high extinction 
risk, exacerbated by their small population size and narrow 
distribution.
    In addition to increasing vulnerability to direct threats such as 
pipeline construction, small population size can result in a decrease 
in genetic diversity due to genetic drift (the random change in genetic 
variation in each generation) and inbreeding (mating of related 
individuals) (Antonovics 1976, p. 238; Ellstram and Elam 1993, pp. 218-
219). Genetic drift can decrease genetic variation within a population 
by favoring certain characteristics and, thereby, increasing 
differences between populations (Ellstram and Elam 1993, pp. 218-219). 
This increased difference between populations can diminish a species' 
ability to adapt to the selective pressures of a changing environment 
(Newman and Pilson 1997, p. 360; Ellstrand 1992, p. 77). Self-
fertilization and low dispersal rates can cause low genetic diversity 
due to inbreeding (Antonovics 1976, p. 238; Barrett and Kohn 1991, p. 
21).
    Although we do know that Texas golden gladecress exists in small 
populations in a fragmented landscape, no information is available 
regarding the genetic diversity exhibited by the species.
Summary of Factor E
    Texas golden gladecress is a historically rare species with some 
adaptations, such as a mixed mating system, that help to alleviate part 
of the

[[Page 55985]]

inherent risks of small population size. The continued existence of 
Texas golden gladecress is negatively impacted by natural factors 
including being limited to only a few remaining populations that 
contain very small numbers of individual plants with a distribution 
restricted to extremely small areas of outcrop. The species' current, 
reduced occurrences across a range that has been highly fragmented by 
past and ongoing human activities increases its vulnerability. With 
only three remaining populations, loss of an entire population could be 
catastrophic for this species' long-term viability. Therefore, based on 
our review of the best available scientific and commercial information, 
we conclude that the small number of remaining populations, all of 
which are small in size, in conjunction with the threats described in 
Factor A, constitutes a threat to the species.

Proposed Determination

    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial 
available information regarding the past, present, and future threats 
to Texas golden gladecress and have determined that the species 
warrants listing as an endangered species throughout its range. 
Significant factors that support this determination include the 
following: (1) Loss of five of eight known populations and their 
associated habitat (Factor A); (2) the ongoing threat of loss or severe 
degradation of habitat on portions of the three remaining population 
sites from glauconite quarrying activities, oil and gas development, 
pipelines, wells, and brush encroachment (Factor A); (3) the threat of 
loss of emerging seedlings from herbicides used to control brush across 
the entire range of the species (Factor A); and (4) the impact of 
extreme or successive years of drought (Factor A). These factors place 
this species at high risk of extinction. Limited distribution and small 
population size of these remnant populations (Factor E) significantly 
heightens the danger of extinction due to threats from Factor A. The 
threats are ongoing and occur throughout the range of the species. 
Therefore, we find that a proposed determination as an endangered 
species, rather than a threatened species, is appropriate.
    The Act defines an endangered species as ``any species which is in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range.'' A major part of the analysis of ``significant portion of the 
range'' requires considering whether the threats to the species are 
geographically concentrated in any way. If the threats are essentially 
uniform throughout the species' range, then no portion is likely to 
warrant further consideration. Based on the threats to Texas golden 
gladecress throughout its entire known range (northern San Augustine 
County, into the northwest quarter of Sabine County, in a roughly 3-mi 
(5-km) wide band paralleling SH 21), we find that the species is 
currently in danger of extinction throughout all of its range, based on 
the severity and scope of the threats described above. The species is 
proposed as an endangered species, rather than a threatened species, 
because the threats are occurring now or will in the near term, and 
their potential impacts to the species would be severe given the 
limited known distribution of the species, the small population sizes 
at all three sites, and the tiny area occupied by these small 
populations, putting this species at risk of extinction at the present 
time. Since these threats extend throughout its entire range, it is 
unnecessary to determine if it is in danger of extinction throughout a 
significant portion of its range. Therefore, on the basis of the best 
available scientific and commercial information, we propose listing the 
Texas golden gladecress as an endangered species throughout its range 
in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.

Neches River Rose-mallow

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

    The principal threats affecting the habitat of the rose-mallow 
include habitat loss and modification through the encroachment of 
nonnative and native plant species, hydrological changes, and 
construction and development projects. These threats may be intensified 
by the restriction of the species' known range to the Neches River 
basin and the Mud and Tantabogue Creeks of five counties within East 
Texas. Other stressors, including silviculture, herbicide use, 
trampling, natural gas activities, and climate change effects were 
reviewed for their impacts to the rose-mallow.
Nonnative Plants
    Nonnative plant species are a constant threat to native flora 
throughout the Gulf coast prairies of Texas and Louisiana (McCormick 
2005, p. 23). We consider the potential threat from two nonnative 
species, chinese tallow and coastal bermudagrass, that occur in rose-
mallow habitat (Miller 2011, pers. comm.). Chinese tallow was 
introduced to the United States in the 1700's from China (McCormick 
2005, pp. 7, 8). This species reproduces quickly, reaches reproductive 
maturity in as little as 3 years, and can remain reproductive for at 
least 60 years (United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2000, p. 2), 
producing an abundance of seed annually (Potts 1946, p. 375; Conway et 
al. 2000, pp. 268-269). Chinese tallow tolerates a range of habitat 
conditions including full sunlight and shade, flooding, and drought 
(USGS 2000, p. 1). The rose-mallow occurs in perennially and 
intermittently wet habitats. Butterfield et al. (2004, p. 338) found 
that chinese tallow grew faster than native species, such as loblolly 
pine, water tupelo (Nyssa aquatic), blackgum (N. sylvatica), and 
sweetgum in both perennially and intermittently wet habitats. Chinese 
tallow occurs at all rose-mallow sites (Miller 2011, pers. comm.) at 
varying densities, limiting the growth and reproduction of the rose-
mallow through competition for light, space, and nutrients.
    Burning, mechanical, and chemical (herbicide) means can be used to 
control chinese tallow. However, prescribed fire has produced complex 
and highly variable results in chinese tallow and may not be an 
effective management tool (Grace 1998, entire; Grace 2011, pers. 
comm.). The Davy Crockett NF is establishing a regular burn cycle of 3-
4 years for all compartments containing the rose-mallow to control 
chinese tallow and to mimic the historical fire regimes of the Coastal 
Plain (Landers et al. 1990, p. 136). The Davy Crockett NF Resource and 
Land Management Plan (specific to the streamside Management Area 4) 
allows for mechanical means and prescribed fire to maintain the native 
plant community but prohibits the use of chemical agents (herbicides) 
unless applied by hand or through nonaqueous form within 100 ft (30.5 
m) of the rose-mallow (USDA 1996, p. 154). Current mowing activities 
along ROWs may abate some growth of chinese tallow, but management 
actions on these sites should also be evaluated. Chemical methods are 
not being used to control chinese tallow.
    Coastal bermudagrass is an introduced bermudagrass cultivar that 
has been widely planted in the southern United States for livestock 
forage. It is adapted to a wide range of soil types and climates and 
tolerates both drought and periodic inundation (Burton and Hanna 1985, 
p. 247). In dry climates, this cultivar will thrive along irrigation 
ditches and streambeds, agricultural fields, and roadside areas (Burton 
and Hanna 1985, p. 247). Due to its hybrid origin, coastal bermudagrass 
produces very few viable seeds and is established

[[Page 55986]]

by planting sprigs (rhizomes and stolons) (Stichler and Bade 2012, p. 
1). Once established, coastal bermudagrass tends to produce dense 
monocultures where native species cannot persist. However, coastal 
bermudagrass has only been seen on one extant site of the rose-mallow. 
This is a secluded portion of the privately owned land of Boggy Slough, 
where coastal bermudagrass appeared to be planted (Allen 2011a, pers. 
comm.) and had not spread to any other sites on the property or the 
adjacent SH 94 ROW population. Since coastal bermudagrass is not 
present at most rose-mallow populations, and has a low rate of spread, 
we believe it is not a significant threat. However, coastal 
bermudagrass could become a threat if introduced into rose-mallow 
habitats.
    In summary, all populations of the rose-mallow are negatively 
affected by chinese tallow, a nonnative tree species that competes with 
the rose-mallow for available soil nutrients, space, and light. Coastal 
bermudagrass is not a current threat to the rose-mallow.
Native Species
    Sweetgum and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) are native, 
deciduous trees of East Texas found at all rose-mallow sites (Miller 
2011, pers. comm.). Sweetgum is found on a variety of soils but grows 
best on moist, alluvial clay and sandy loams of river bottoms (Kormanik 
2004, p. 790, in Burns and Honkala 1990). Green ash also tolerates a 
range of soils and in Texas is abundant in clay or silty loams of 
floodplains (Johnson 1980, in Gucker 2005, p. 15). Both species also 
grow in full sun to partially shaded habitats. Therefore, both the 
sweetgum and green ash are well adapted to the hydric alluvial soils 
and open canopies that the rose-mallow needs. In the absence of other 
competing species, sweetgum and green ash can attain large sizes (50-
100 ft (15-30 m)) (Dickerson 2002, p. 1) and can reduce the open canopy 
needed by the rose-mallow (Kirkman 1995, pp. 12, 15). Although 
naturally occurring wildfires or prescribed fire limit the abundance of 
these tree species, prescribed fire is not a widely accepted method of 
ROW maintenance. Four rose-mallow populations that were monitored in 
2011 were overgrown with sweetgum and green ash (Miller 2011, pers. 
comm.; TXNDD 2012a, pp. 1-11, 20-28). Two of these sites were on ROWs, 
and prescribed burning had not been used at the other two sites. 
Consequently, about 27 percent of the rose-mallow's populations are 
impacted by competition and shading from native sweetgum and green ash 
trees. Therefore, native species that compete with rose-mallow for 
light and nutrients are a moderate threat to the species, and may 
become a significant threat if maintenance is not continued at occupied 
sites.
Hydrological Changes
    The rose-mallow can be found in both intermittent and perennial 
wetlands along oxbows, sloughs, terraces, ponds, and other low-lying 
areas in habitats with minimal standing water. Wetlands are ecological 
communities with hydric (flooded or saturated) soils. Many aquatic 
species, including the rose-mallow, are adapted to highly variable 
rates of water flow, including seasonal high and low flows and 
occasional floods and droughts. For example, the rose-mallow may 
require high precipitation and flowing water or floods to disperse seed 
(Warnock 1995, p. 20; Scott 1997, p. 8; Reeves 2008, p. 3).
    Channelization, drainage, dredging, ditching, stream diversion, 
impoundments, ground water withdrawals, and levees have historically 
caused wetland loss (North Carolina State University Water Quality 
Group 2012, http://www.water.ncsu.edu/watershedss/info/wetlands/wetloss.html). Some degree of hydrological change is seen at all of the 
rose-mallow sites. At Boggy Slough, shifts of river and creek beds have 
left meandering scars and remnant oxbows. Several levees have been 
built that have changed the natural landscape and flow patterns at this 
site to make ponds available for duck hunting, thereby converting 
seasonally inundated wetlands to permanently flooded wetlands (Miller 
2011, pers. comm.). On TLC land, rose-mallow plants once lined the 
perimeter of a flatwoods pond. After 2003, a stock pond was built there 
(TXNDD 2012a, p. 18) in what was likely part of an overflow channel 
from Tantabogue Creek. The constructed stock pond altered the natural 
surface hydrology by retaining overflow from Tantabogue Creek, 
preventing it from draining south to the rose-mallow site. During the 
2011 survey conducted by the Service and TPWD, we observed only 539 
rose-mallow stems, most of which were in relatively poor condition. The 
hydrologic alteration of the site combined with drought conditions 
reduced the height of rose-mallow stems, thus increasing their 
vulnerability to browsing by cattle. During 2011, drought also led to 
increased grazing pressure in rose-mallow habitats. Once normal 
rainfall has resumed and preferred forage sources become available, 
grazing pressure is expected to diminish.
    All four of the Davy Crockett NF sites may also be affected by 
hydrological changes. A pine-oak forest on adjacent private land 
regulates the amount, timing, and possibly the rate of water flow 
westward into compartment 55. Removal or alteration of the pine-oak 
forest could change the hydrology of compartment 55, thereby also 
changing the rose-mallow seed dispersal range; however, the likelihood 
of these tree removal or habitat alteration activities are unknown but 
likely minimal. All NF sites censused in 2011 were completely dry 
except for compartment 20, where a small pond to the south drains into 
the compartment (Miller 2011, pers. comm.). We found no records of 
hydrologic alterations in compartments 20 and 11. In 2000, when the 
rose-mallow was introduced into a wetland on compartment 16, a beaver 
dam was present. When the dam broke in 2002, water infiltrated the site 
and the original hydrology was altered (TXNDD 2012a, p. 44). Water 
depth at the site was likely altered, but rose-mallow plants were still 
observed as recently as 2011. Additional beaver activity, such as 
selective cutting and damage to certain tree species, was evident only 
at Boggy Slough. These activities along with dam building by beavers 
were not evident and are not considered a threat to the rose-mallow. 
Although beaver dams could impact the site's hydrology and vegetation, 
beavers are not currently a threat nor are anticipated to become a 
threat to the rose-mallow.
    Some of the rose-mallow populations occur on private lands where 
modification of a Federal jurisdictional wetland could require a Clean 
Water Act permit. However, not all actions affecting wetlands require 
Federal agency review. These privately owned sites may be affected by 
wetland and hydrological changes through anthropogenic and natural 
causes and could cause a loss of a few individuals or a population. 
Therefore, hydrological changes are a threat to the rose-mallow and its 
habitat.
Development and Construction Projects
    In 1978, the Angelina and Neches River Authority (ANRA) proposed 
the construction of a reservoir known as Lake Columbia (previously 
known as Eastex), in Cherokee and Smith Counties, Texas (ANRA 2012, 
http://www.anra.org/divisions/reservoirs/columbia/history.html), to 
supply water for five surrounding counties (U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers (USACE), 2010, pp. 2-4, 3-43). The dam for this reservoir 
would be constructed on Mud Creek and would impound approximately 
195,500 acre-feet (ac-ft)

[[Page 55987]]

(241 million cubic meters, mcm) of water in a reservoir reaching 14 mi 
(22.5 km) upstream (USACE 2010, p. 1-1). Up to 85,507 ac-ft (1105 mcm) 
of water would be diverted from the downstream flow of Mud Creek (USACE 
2010, p. 1-1). An extant rose-mallow population is found at the 
intersection of Hwy 204 and Mud Creek but is not within the permitted 
project area reviewed in the draft Environmental Impact Statement. A 
Habitat Evaluation Procedures analysis of the permitted project area 
did not document any rose-mallow plants (Walker 2011, pers. comm.). We 
are also unaware of any rose-mallows inside the proposed project area. 
The Hwy 204 ROW site is a perennial wetland where plants remain 
inundated year round; therefore, a change in the water levels at this 
site could make it unsuitable for rose-mallow or could restrict seed 
dispersal downstream. Drought conditions could also exacerbate these 
impacts, and the reduced downstream water flows could completely 
extirpate the Hwy 204 site (USACE 2010, p. 4-154; Heger 2012, pers. 
comm.).
    Only the Hwy 204 rose-mallow population of Mud Creek will be 
impacted from this project, constituting nine percent of the total 
extant population. Consequently, we consider development and 
construction projects to be a minor threat to the rose-mallow.
Upgrades and Construction for ROWs, Roads, Bridges, and Other 
Structures
    Three rose-mallow populations are located on or near SH ROWs in 
Houston, Trinity, and Cherokee Counties. These ROW populations are 
vulnerable to impacts from bridge and road expansion and upgrades, 
including hydrologic changes, soil movement, and altered wetland or 
riparian vegetation. For example, in 2005, a proposed bridge 
replacement on SH 230 would have altered approximately 4.91 ac (2 ha) 
of rose-mallow habitat south of the ROW and 0.07 ac (0.03 ha) north of 
the ROW (Adams 2005, p. 1). To mitigate for these impacts, TxDOT 
proposed to acquire an additional 5 ac (2.02 ha) of rose-mallow habitat 
located north of the TLC property; unfortunately, the proposed 
mitigation plans fell through (Adams 2011a, pers. comm.). Bridge 
replacement is continuing along SH 94, but as of 2011 had not 
progressed into rose-mallow habitats (Adams 2011c, pers. comm.). 
Although the human population has increased in Houston, Trinity, and 
Cherokee Counties in East Texas (U.S. Census Bureau 2012)), no large 
road expansion projects are anticipated for the two additional ROW 
sites (Adams 2011c, pers. comm.). Although road projects are mainly 
restricted to ROW easements, they may potentially impact three 
populations representing 27 percent of the total known population. 
Therefore, SH ROW maintenance and bridge and other structural projects 
will continue to be a threat to the species.
Silviculture
    Pine plantations in East Texas are established mainly on uplands 
that are managed to mimic old fields or grassy savannas (Fox et al. 
2007, p. 340). Site preparation may include anchor chaining, chopping, 
burning, root raking, shearing, and disking (Balmer and Little 1978, p. 
60). One rose-mallow population on private property south of Hwy 230 
was extirpated when the site was converted to a pine plantation 
sometime after 2003 (Poole 2011b, pers. comm.; TXNDD 2012a, pp. 61-67). 
Three additional sites in or near rose-mallow populations have evidence 
of clearing, including: adjacent land south of the Davy Crockett NF 
compartment 55; an extirpated site located south of the extant Lovelady 
site, Houston County; and the privately owned site at Champion, Trinity 
County. Rose-mallow populations may also be potentially impacted by 
herbicides applied to pine plantations that drift into the rose-mallow 
habitat (see discussion below). Herbicide treatments are increasingly 
popular because they remove unwanted plant growth without causing soil 
erosion from the site; however, herbicide use increases incidents of 
water pollution and aerial drift to nontarget sites (Balmer and Little 
1978, p. 63). Herbicide damage was evident along the Hwy 230 ROW, south 
of the extant rose-mallow site on TLC property, but whether this damage 
was the result of herbicide use by the landowner at the pine plantation 
is unknown. The perennial or intermittent wetlands that the rose-mallow 
inhabits are usually not suitable habitats for pine plantations. 
Therefore, we conclude that silviculture currently is not a threat to 
the rose-mallow.
Herbicide Use
    Several incidents have been documented of herbicide impacts to 
rose-mallow plants on ROWs and on privately owned lands. A 
subpopulation with approximately 50 plants, on private property in 
Trinity County south of Hwy 230, was extirpated by herbicide use (USFWS 
2010a, p. 7). Herbicide drift along the SH 230 ROW (Gordon 2009, pp. 3-
4) caused the rose-mallow population to decline from 14 plants in 1999 
(Poole 2001, p. 2) to zero plants in 2002 (Miller 2011, pers. comm.). 
The Land and Resource Management Plan of Davy Crockett NF restricts the 
use of nonaquatic herbicides unless hand-applied (USDA 1996, p. 153); 
there have been no documented herbicide impacts to rose-mallow in any 
of its four compartments. The TxDOT uses herbicides to remove woody 
vegetation from ROWs (Miller 2005, pers. comm., in USFWS 2006, p. 7; 
Adams 2011c, pers. comm.), but mechanical clearing methods have largely 
replaced the use of herbicides in these ROW areas. Although herbicides 
can be an effective management tool for the control of some nonnative 
species, dispersal downstream and unexpected rainfall could impact 
individual plants or whole populations, depending on the nature of the 
herbicide. Therefore, we conclude that herbicides are a threat that 
could impact 7 of 11 (64 percent) total rose-mallow populations.
Trampling by Feral Hog and Cattle
    Feral hogs (Sus scrofa) were first introduced to the mainland of 
North America (Wood and Barrett 1979, pp. 237, 238) in Texas in 1542, 
although large-scale introductions did not occur until the 1930's (Isle 
and Hellgren 1995, p. 793). Feral hogs are omnivores that dig up the 
soil in search of roots, tubers, and invertebrates. Feral hogs use 
their snouts to turn over soil, creating mounds and depressions 
(Arrington et al. 1999, p. 535). Hogs transition from foraging in oak 
stands during winter months, moving in summer to swamp and marsh edges 
to feed on grasses, sedges, tubers, and roots (Wood and Roark 1980, pp. 
507-509). Feral hogs are able to travel long distances to feed, and 
often uproot vast areas of habitat. Feral hogs reach sexual maturity at 
6-8 months (Wood and Barrett 1979, p. 242) and have large litter sizes. 
Hogs can inadvertently incur severe damage to other food resources and 
habitat during their regular foraging activity. Feral hog damage has 
historically been recorded at Mill Creek Gardens, but uprooting of 
rose-mallow taproots was not observed (Creech 2011a, pers. comm.; 
Miller 2011, pers. comm.). Feral hog tracks were observed on all four 
NF sites; however, plants were not damaged by herbivory or trampling 
(Miller 2011, pers. comm.). Feral hogs generally do not affect rose-
mallow populations because the habitat is permanently or temporarily 
flooded, limiting their access. However, drought may enhance 
accessibility to rose-mallow sites, thus increasing their 
susceptibility to trampling. Growth of the feral hog populations could 
also lead to increased soil disturbance and impacts to the native 
vegetative community, which

[[Page 55988]]

could create prime conditions for nonnative species to invade. Feral 
hog tracks have been limited to a few rose-mallow sites with minimal 
damage to habitat. However, no direct impacts to rose-mallow plants 
have been observed. Therefore, we determine that feral hogs are not a 
stressor to the species.
    It is estimated that livestock grazing has damaged 80 percent of 
stream and riparian ecosystems in the southern United States (Belsky et 
al. 1999, p. 419). The damage includes increased sedimentation, 
decreased water quality, and trampling and overgrazed stream banks 
where succulent (high water content) forage exists (Armour et al. 1994, 
p. 10; Fleischner 1994, p. 631; Belsky et al. 1999, p. 419). Trampling 
causes soil compaction and damage to both above- and below-ground 
vegetative plant structures and increases soil erosion (Warren et al. 
1986, p. 491). Livestock owned by a neighboring landowner were present 
on TLC's property at Lovelady. TLC has attempted to exclude these 
livestock, and has proposed constructing an exclusion fence around the 
current location of the rose-mallow population; however, funding has 
not been secured (Dietz 2011, pers. comm.). The rose-mallow at Lovelady 
is concentrated along a low area leading into a stock pond (Miller 
2011, pers. comm.). We have not observed damage to rose-mallow from 
cattle trampling at Lovelady (Miller 2011, pers. comm.), and are not 
aware of other rose-mallow sites being trampled by livestock. In 
summary, cattle are present at only one rose-mallow site (9 percent of 
the total known population), and the effects are small and may be 
remedied through exclusion devices. Therefore, we conclude that 
livestock grazing is not a threat to the rose-mallow.
Natural Gas Pipelines and Well Activity
    The Haynesville/Bossier and Eagle Ford Shale formations in East 
Texas are currently being developed for oil and natural gas production. 
In Harrison County, Texas, there is a single record of rose-mallow at a 
privately owned site that has not been seen since 1980 (Birnbaum 2011, 
pers. comm.; TXNDD 2012a, pp. 12-13); we do not know if the site has 
been affected by ongoing natural gas exploration in that county. The 
RRC regulates the oil and natural gas industry in the state of Texas 
and maintains a database with proposed activities. Several of the 
counties with known populations of rose-mallow, including Houston, 
Trinity, Nacogdoches, and Cherokee Counties, may be subject to 
increased oil and natural gas exploration in the future (RRC 2012). 
However, oil and gas exploration was not observed on or directly 
adjacent to any of the rose-mallow populations that the Service 
observed in 2011, and currently there are no proposals near extant 
rose-mallow populations. Therefore, we determine that oil and natural 
gas exploration activities are not currently a threat to the rose-
mallow.
Climate Change
    We discuss the topic of climate change in greater detail in the 
Factor A Threats Analysis for the Texas golden gladecress, which is 
also found in East Texas. In summary, the consensus of climate models 
predicts that the climate in East Texas will become warmer and will 
experience both more frequent droughts and more extreme precipitation 
events. Diggs et al. (2006, p. 80) states that climate extremes, 
particularly drought and low temperatures, have greater influence than 
average conditions do on excluding nonadapted species. Extreme 
precipitation events (such as tropical storms) may adversely affect the 
rose-mallow by altering flow regimes and by temporarily increasing the 
depth of its aquatic habitat to a level it cannot survive. A warmer 
climate with more precipitation extremes may also increase competition 
from native and nonnative invasive plant species (USFWS 2010a, p. 8). 
The timing of precipitation is also crucial for the rose-mallow, since 
seed dispersal is dependent on flowing water.
    In October 2011, all rose-mallow populations and habitats showed 
evidence of damage from the previous 3 years of drought, including 
changes in leaf morphology, increased herbivory by livestock, dead 
plants at specific sites, and lower water levels in perennial wetlands. 
The survival of rose-mallow populations during previous drought cycles 
may have been aided by its greater abundance and by greater habitat 
contiguity; habitat fragmentation and isolation impede the 
recolonization of sites, following a catastrophic loss, from 
neighboring seed sources. Plant populations may also recover from the 
soil seed bank (viable seeds that remain dormant in the soil until 
conditions become favorable). We do not have information on the 
abundance or distribution of the rose-mallow seed bank or how long its 
seeds may remain in a dormant yet viable condition.
    Nevertheless, climate change models have less precision at the fine 
geographic scale of the rose-mallow's range, and we lack specific 
information on the species' ability to withstand extreme conditions. We 
conclude that the effects of climate change may be a threat to the 
rose-mallow in the future, but are not currently a threat to its 
survival. However, drought conditions, which may worsen with changing 
climates in the region, may have significant effects on the rose-mallow 
populations, especially in combination with other threats discussed in 
this section.
Other Conservation Efforts
    Three populations of the rose-mallow exist along SH ROWs in 
Houston, Trinity, and Cherokee Counties. TxDOT and TPWD currently 
operate under a revised 1988 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that 
governs management actions targeting conservation of listed species and 
key habitats on SH ROWs that may potentially affect natural resources 
within facilities owned or managed by TPWD. Since the rose-mallow is 
not a listed species, the MOU relates to protection of rose-mallow 
habitat if the proposed projects include the following: Contains 1.0 ac 
(0.54 ha) of new ROW within floodplains or creek drainages; requires 
channel modifications to streams, rivers, or water bodies; and requires 
realignment of channels with mature woody vegetation; or projects that 
may impact mature woody or native vegetation (Texas Administrative Code 
1999, p. 4). Although a formal mechanism via the MOU has been 
established to review projects and alleviate or eliminate threats to 
Federal and State-listed species and key resources, there have not been 
any projects that fit these standards that have been recently reviewed 
under the MOU.
    The five remaining populations, including a portion of the Hwy 94 
site, are located on private lands. Historically, two Candidate 
Conservation Agreements (CCAs) were formed between the Service and 
Champion International (Champion) in 1998 and with Temple-Inland Forest 
Products (Temple-Inland) in 2002 to conserve the rose-mallow on both 
sites. CCA's are not legally binding and private landowners are not 
restricted by guidelines outlined in the CCA. Champion's 5-year CCA, 
included 40 ac (16.2 ha) of wetland and was located east of White Rock 
Creek in Trinity County (Champion site in Table 4). Management 
guidelines included: Maintain 100-ft (30-m) buffer around occupied and 
dispersal habitat, free from timber harvesting, site preparation, and 
reforestation activities; minimize hydrological alterations; inhibit 
filling or pilling debris or material on populations; and apply 
herbicides only

[[Page 55989]]

by hand and at times of little or no wind (USFWS 1998, p. 4). The 
Champion property was sold to Temple-Inland in 2001 and in 2004, the 
CCA expired (USFWS 2010a, p. 9). The Temple-Inland CCA covered an area 
that has a 20-ac (8.1-ha) wetland with rose-mallow (Boggy slough site 
in Table 4); the plants declined due to drought and alteration of an 
onsite wetland. A smaller wetland with rose-mallow plants was drained 
in order to regulate water levels of the larger wetland, which was to 
be used by Temple-Inland for recreational hunting (USFWS 2002, p. 3; 
USFWS 2010a, p. 9). The Temple-Inland CCA was valid 2002-2004. Contact 
was made with the owners and the Service and TPWD visited the site in 
October 2011 where plants appeared healthy, but nonnative and native 
species encroachment into rose-mallow habitat was observed (Miller 
2011, pers. comm.).
    Lovelady was once owned by the Natural Area Preservation 
Association and is now owned by TLC. Thirty acres (12 ha) of land were 
purchased in 2004, located north of Hwy 230 (TLC 2011, http://www.texaslandconservancy.org). Purchase of this easement on private 
land was specifically for the conservation of the rose-mallow; however 
plants occur on private land, and they are not offered protection under 
the Act unless a Federal action or funding is planned. However, TLC has 
initiated a voluntary effort to construct a cattle-exclusion fence but 
funds were taken prior to completion of the fence and the project was 
not completed (Dietz 2011, pers. comm.). The introduced site at Mill 
Creek Gardens was created in 1995 as a conservation easement by a 
private donor (SFASU 1999, p.1) and was used as an experimental plot to 
test fertilizer and mulching effects on the rose-mallow (Scott 1997, 
pp. 6-7). This site is informally managed through mowing and burning 
regimes prescribed by SFASU staff, but encroachment from native woody 
species has been observed in the past (Creech 2011c, pers. comm.). Due 
to a lack of accessibility, the two remaining private properties, the 
Harrison County site and Camp Olympia have not been observed since 1980 
and 1992, respectively (Warnock 1995, pp. 6, 8; TXNDD 2012a, pp. 58-
60).
Summary of Factor A
    Based on our evaluation of the best available information, we 
conclude that the present loss and modification of the rose-mallow's 
habitat is a significant threat to the species' continued survival. 
Threats include competition for light and nutrients by invasive plant 
species, particularly chinese tallow, altered hydrology, and herbicide 
drift; these threats may be exacerbated by future road and bridge 
construction and maintenance work. We determine that livestock grazing 
and feral hogs are not significant threats to the species. Although 
silvicultural practices have caused some prior impacts to the species, 
we do not anticipate that silviculture will continue to be a 
significant threat. The exploration and development of oil and natural 
gas wells, and predicted effects of climate change, are not currently 
threats to the species, but do represent potential future stressors. 
Additional conservation measures that had protected habitat and certain 
actions on privately owned land have expired and no longer provide 
protection to habitat of the rose-mallow. Therefore, we conclude that 
the rose-mallow faces significant threats due to habitat loss, 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species' habitat or 
range.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    The showy flowers produced by the genus Hibiscus make it of high 
horticultural interest (USFWS 2010a, p. 8) to Hibiscus enthusiasts 
(Warnock 1995, p. 25; Poole et al. 2007, p. 265). Hybridization within 
genus Hibiscus is repeatedly done in the nursery trade (Creech 2011a, 
pers. comm.) to produce different colored flowers and modify other 
traits that may be of commercial interest. Ornamental landscaping 
companies sell rose-mallow plants online (Creech 2011a, pers. comm.). 
Rose-mallow plants are easy to cultivate from cuttings, and having 
plants available for sale in the nursery trade reduces collecting 
pressures of the species from the wild (Creech 2011a, pers. comm.). 
Plantings of rose-mallow into garden settings are standard and 
placement within close proximity to wild populations has not been 
recorded or observed.
    Mercer Arboretum collected seed in 1993, 1994, 1996, 1997, and 
2003; these seeds, as well as living plants, are being maintained at 
the Mercer Arboretum (Tiller 2011, pers. comm.). A portion of the seeds 
collected were grown out in the Arboretum's Rare and Endangered 
Gardens, where they have remained; seeds and plants have not been 
transplanted back into the wild populations (Tiller 2011, pers. comm.). 
Rose-mallow seed was also sent to the National Seed Storage Laboratory 
in Fort Collins, Colorado, for long-term storage for conservation 
purposes (Ellis 2011, pers. comm.).
    The scientific and horticultural communities have collected rose-
mallow seeds and plants from wild populations; however, we have no 
evidence that suggests that collection has depleted the seed bank or 
has adversely affected populations. Plants are easily cultivated and 
the species is well established as a nursery trade plant, thereby 
reducing potential collection pressure. Based on the best available 
information, we conclude that collection for recreational, scientific, 
or educational purposes is not a threat to the rose-mallow and is not 
likely to increase in the future.

C. Disease or Predation

    Leaves and stems of plants in the Hibiscus family (Kroll 1991, p. 
392; Everitt et al. 1999, pp. 177-193) are often consumed by white-
tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) (Moreland 2005, p. 48). Cattle 
also consume the stems but to a lesser degree than white-tailed deer 
(Everitt et al. 1999, pp. 187-193). In 1993, evidence of herbivory was 
present at four rose-mallow subpopulations at Lovelady (Warnock 1995, 
p. 18) and in 2010, at compartment 20 (Allen and Duty 2010, p. 3). In 
2011 at 5 of the 11 populations, above-ground portions of the rose-
mallow, mainly the tips, were grazed by white-tail deer, with the most 
intense herbivory occurring at the Lovelady site. Plants consumed by 
deer could decrease the reproductive success of the rose-mallow (Adler 
et al. 2001, p. 1). Only at the compartment 20 on the Davy Crockett NF 
was the evidence of browsing on the flowers observed (Allen and Duty 
2010, p. 3); however, the species is able to produce secondary growth 
(Strauss and Agrawal 1999, p. 179). Drought could exacerbate the 
consumption of leaves and stems if preferred plants were not available, 
but we conclude that ungulate (hoofed animal) herbivory is an 
insignificant stressor to the rose-mallow.
    Insect damage and predation has been observed on rose-mallow plants 
in several populations; however, regrowth of foliage after herbivory 
incidents may indicate that the rose-mallow is adapted to herbivory 
(Strauss and Agrawal 1999, p. 179). Ninety percent of the first foliage 
of rose-mallow leaves at Lovelady had been consumed by insects (USFWS 
2010a, p. 8) with insect predation also seen on compartment 11 plants 
in 2006 (Philipps 2009, p. 1). The scentless plant bug was observed on 
plants in compartment 55 (Miller 2011, pers. comm.). This bug is known 
to deposit egg masses on stems, leaves,

[[Page 55990]]

flower parts, buds, and seed pods of Hibiscus species (Wheeler 1977, p. 
632), but to also consume Hibiscus seeds (Toth 2007, p. 6). Holes were 
observed on several rose-mallow plants on all NF sites (Miller 2011, 
pers. comm.) and were likely caused by this plant bug; however, these 
bugs are not considered a significant pest because the damage to the 
plants is minor (Toth 2007, p. 6). Larval forms of the Hibiscus sawfly 
(Atomacera decepta) can consume rose-mallow seed pods in herbaria, but 
have not been noted to affect wild populations (Wieland 1995, p. 1; 
Creech 2011a, pers. comm.).
    Changes in precipitation are not well understood in relationship to 
insect herbivory (Bale et al. 2002, p. 2). Drought conditions may 
exacerbate consumption of the vegetative and floral parts if other food 
resources within the plant community become scarce. Temperature shifts 
related to climate change may trigger corresponding insect population 
shifts. Impacts from insect population shifts cannot be predicted; 
however, if conditions favor the growth of insect populations, the 
effects of insect herbivory on the rose-mallow could increase.
Summary of Factor C
    Mammalian herbivory has affected the majority of sites; however, 
grazing pressures are largely attributed to the lack of other available 
food resources during periods of drought. Rose-mallow recovers quickly 
from herbivory incidents and can produce secondary growth, minimizing 
the overall negative effects of mammalian herbivory. This type of 
herbivory is not considered to be a threat to the species. Insect 
herbivory was also observed on several of the sites and was not range-
wide but, with anticipated climate change shifts in temperature and the 
likelihood that insect populations will increase, we conclude that 
insect predation is a minor stressor that will likely continue into the 
future.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    Under this factor, we examine whether existing regulatory 
mechanisms are inadequate to address the threats to the species 
discussed under the other factors. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act 
requires the Service to take into account ``those efforts, if any, 
being made by any State or foreign nation, or any political subdivision 
of a State or foreign nation, to protect such species * * *'' In 
relation to Factor D under the Act, we interpret this language to 
require the Service to consider relevant Federal, State, and tribal 
laws, regulations, and other such mechanisms that may minimize any of 
the threats we describe in threat analyses under the other four 
factors, or otherwise enhance conservation of the species. We give 
strongest weight to statutes and their implementing regulations and to 
management direction that stems from those laws and regulations. An 
example would be State governmental actions enforced under a State 
statute or constitution, or Federal action under statute.
    Having evaluated the significance of the threat as mitigated by any 
such conservation efforts, we analyze under Factor D the extent to 
which existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to address the 
specific threats to the species. Regulatory mechanisms, if they exist, 
may reduce or eliminate the impacts from one or more identified 
threats. In this section, we review existing State and Federal 
regulatory mechanisms to determine whether they effectively reduce or 
remove threats to the rose-mallow.
    Davy Crockett NF lands are federally owned and managed by the USDA 
Forest Service for the general public. Four populations of the rose-
mallow occur on the Davy Crockett NF. The NF classifies the rose-mallow 
as a Regional Forester's Sensitive Species (Philipps 2012, pers. comm.) 
and habitat is within Management Area Zone 4, according to the Revised 
Land and Resource Management Plan (1996). This management zone includes 
the bed, bank, and water resources of the rivers, perennial and 
intermittent streams and wetlands, and their adjacent areas (USDA 1996, 
p. 145). This area is managed to maintain the role and function of 
aquatic, riparian, and wetland ecosystems while providing opportunities 
for compatible multiple uses and will be managed to meet 
recommendations stated in the Texas Wetland Plan (TPWD 1988) and Best 
Management Practices established by the State (USDA 1996, p. 151). 
Relative Management Area Zone 4 standards and guidelines include: 
Maintenance or restoration of native plant communities; prohibition of 
nonaquatic herbicide uses except hand applications or noxious weed 
control following restriction on the herbicide label; and use of 
prescribed fire when necessary to enhance riparian vegetation or 
wildlife habitat (USDA 1996, pp. 153, 155). Herbicides are not 
currently being used on the Davy Crockett NF and have been replaced by 
prescribed fire, with the goal of routinely burning compartments every 
3 years (Stiles 2011, pers. comm.). As discussed previously (see Factor 
A; Nonnative Species), routine fires may play a role in reducing 
chinese tallow. Actions that may affect rose-mallow habitat need to be 
assessed using these standards and guidelines because these are 
considered regulations that need to be followed (Phillips 2012, pers. 
comm.). The encroachment of nonnative and native vegetation in rose-
mallow habitat is not addressed in the Revised Land and Resource 
Management Plan; however, the application of prescribed fire in some 
areas may benefit the rose-mallow.
    The rose-mallow is considered by the Forest Service to be a 
sensitive species on the Davy Crockett NF. A sensitive species is 
defined as one not yet warranting listing as an endangered or 
threatened species, but which is sufficiently rare that its future 
survival is of concern (Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2670). The 
management of sensitive species is described in FSM 2670, and the 
management objectives are to develop and implement management practices 
to ensure that species do not become an endangered or threatened 
species because of Forest Service actions; maintain viable populations 
of all native and desired nonnative wildlife, fish, and plant species 
in habitats distributed throughout their geographic range on National 
Forest System lands; and develop and implement management objectives 
for populations or habitat of sensitive species or both. In addition, 
the Forest Service has to consider the effects of their actions on the 
viability of sensitive species through the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et. seq.) process. As defined by 
Forest Service policy, actions must not result in loss of species 
viability or create significant trends toward the need for Federal 
listing. This designation does not provide specific habitat or species 
protection, but does provide some benefits to the species because of 
increased awareness and evaluating projects that may affect the species 
through the NEPA process. Significant threats to the rose-mallow are 
not addressed with this designation.
    Existing regulatory mechanisms do not provide protection for plants 
on private lands. Rose-mallow populations on NF lands receive some 
protection from habitat modification, and the application of the Forest 
Service standards and guidelines are not mandatory. In addition, not 
all threats are addressed, such as encroachment of nonnative and native 
species into rose-mallow habitat. The designation of sensitive species 
for the rose-mallow does not address the threats to the species. 
Therefore, based on our review of available information, we conclude

[[Page 55991]]

that existing regulatory mechanisms provide some protection against 
threats, but not all of the threats are addressed. Therefore, the 
existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

Small Population Size
    Small population size can result in a decrease in genetic diversity 
due to genetic drift (the random change in genetic variation each 
generation) and inbreeding (mating of related individuals) (Antonovics 
1976, p. 238; Ellstram and Elam 1993, pp. 218-219). Genetic drift can 
decrease genetic variation within a population by favoring certain 
characteristics and, thereby, increasing differences between 
populations (Ellstram and Elam 1993, pp. 218-219). Self-fertilization 
and low dispersal rates can cause low genetic diversity due to 
inbreeding (Antonovics 1976, p. 238; Barrett and Kohn 1991, p. 21). 
This decreased genetic diversity diminishes a species' ability to adapt 
to the selective pressures of a changing environment (Ellstrand 1992, 
p. 77; Newman and Pilson 1997, p. 360).
    No genetic studies have been conducted on the rose-mallow. There is 
no evidence that rose-mallow populations are experiencing genetic drift 
or inbreeding. We conclude that small population size is not a threat 
to the rose-mallow.
 Hybridization
    The genus Hibiscus easily hybridizes in the nursery trade (Creech 
2011a, pers. comm.). Hybridization under natural conditions has not 
been verified, but several rose-mallow sites contain individuals that 
may be products of crosses between the rose-mallow with H. laevis or H. 
moscheutos. In some locations, H. laevis or H. moscheutos, or both, 
grow in close proximity to the rose-mallow. These plants have leaves, 
flowers, and floral parts resembling both parent species (USFWS 2010a, 
p. 3; TXNDD 2012a, entire). So far, these are only observations and no 
genetic studies have taken place to verify if hybridization is 
occurring. We do not consider hybridization to be a threat to the rose-
mallow.

Proposed Determination

    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial 
available information regarding the past, present, and future threats 
to the rose-mallow and have determined that the species warrants 
listing as a threatened species throughout its range. Significant 
factors that support this determination include the following:
     The significant and ongoing threat from nonnative species 
at all sites (Factor A);
     The potential extirpation of an occupied rose-mallow site 
from a reservoir project (Factor A);
     Ongoing and potential changes to key hydrological features 
of the species' habitat (Factor A);
     The potential threat from future construction and ROW 
projects (Factor A);
     Ongoing threats from aerial herbicide drift incidents 
(Factor A); and
     Sustained drought that affects habitat quality and 
reproductive output of the species (Factor A).

Existing threats may be exacerbated by the effects of ongoing and 
future climate change, especially projected increases in temperature 
and decreases in precipitation that may increase the frequency and 
severity of droughts. The species receives some level of protection 
from habitat modification on NF lands through the standards and 
guidelines for Management Area Zone 4, which encompasses rose-mallow 
sites. However, these guidelines do not address all the significant 
threats to the species. Four of the 11 existing rose-mallow 
populations, including the largest and most robust population, occur on 
NF lands. Therefore, existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate.
    Some threats (such as herbicide spraying and nonnative species 
encroachment) are significant and occur throughout the range of the 
species, but the threats do not affect all rose-mallow populations. For 
instance, drift from herbicide spraying likely resulted in the 
extirpation of the rose-mallow in the SH 230 ROW, and the other two 
populations within SH ROWs may be affected by herbicide spraying in the 
future; however, rose-mallow populations on NF lands are not threatened 
by this activity. All populations are threatened by the invasion of 
nonnatives, resulting in competition for light and nutrients, but 
maintenance activities occur within different populations to minimize 
this threat. To our knowledge, this species has not experienced a 
reduction in its range, all of the known populations and sites are 
still present on the landscape, and the natural populations have 
maintained viable population numbers. In addition, there are four 
introduced populations that remain viable, although the introduced 
populations on NF lands have declined in recent years. Some threats are 
likely to occur in the foreseeable future, but are not ongoing. The 
potential effects from the construction of the Lake Columbia reservoir 
have not taken place, and there is uncertainty if the downstream 
population of rose-mallow would be affected by changes in hydrology. 
Therefore, we conclude that the species does not meet the definition of 
an endangered species (in danger of extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range), but meets the definition of a 
threatened species (likely to become an endangered species in the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range).
    The Act defines threatened as ``any species that is likely to 
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range.'' A major part of the 
analysis of ``significant portion of the range'' requires considering 
whether the threats to the rose-mallow are geographically concentrated 
in any way. If the threats are consistently uniform throughout the 
species' range, then no portion is likely to warrant further 
consideration.
    Since threats extend throughout its entire range and are not 
geographically concentrated, it is unnecessary to determine whether the 
rose-mallow should be considered an endangered species within a 
significant portion of its range. Therefore, on the basis of the best 
available scientific and commercial information, we propose listing the 
Neches River rose-mallow as a threatened species throughout its range 
in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as an endangered 
or threatened species under the Act include recognition, recovery 
actions, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against 
certain practices. Recognition through listing results in public 
awareness and conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local 
agencies, private organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages 
cooperation with the States and requires that recovery actions be 
carried out for all listed species. The protection required by Federal 
agencies and the prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, 
in part, below.
    The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered 
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The 
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these 
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of 
the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act requires the Service to develop

[[Page 55992]]

and implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and 
threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the 
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the 
species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and 
recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a 
point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning 
components of their ecosystems.
    Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline 
shortly after a species is listed, preparation of a draft and final 
recovery plan, and revisions to the plan as significant new information 
becomes available. The recovery outline guides the immediate 
implementation of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to 
be used to develop a recovery plan. The recovery plan identifies site-
specific management actions that will achieve recovery of the species, 
measurable criteria that determine when a species may be downlisted or 
delisted, and methods for monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans 
also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate their recovery 
efforts and provide estimates of the cost of implementing recovery 
tasks. Recovery teams (comprising species experts, Federal and State 
agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders) are often 
established to develop recovery plans. When completed, the recovery 
outline, draft recovery plan, and the final recovery plan will be 
available on our Web site (http://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our 
Corpus Christi Ecological Service Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above).
    Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the 
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal 
agencies, States, Tribal, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, 
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat 
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive 
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The 
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on 
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires 
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
    If these species are listed, funding for recovery actions will be 
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State 
programs, and cost share grants for non-Federal landowners, the 
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition, 
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the State of Texas would be eligible 
for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote the 
protection and recovery of the gladecress and the rose-mallow. 
Information on our grant programs that are available to aid species 
recovery can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/grants.
    Although the gladecress and rose-mallow are only proposed for 
listing under the Act at this time, please let us know if you are 
interested in participating in recovery efforts for this species. 
Additionally, we invite you to submit any new information on this 
species whenever it becomes available and any information you may have 
for recovery planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, 
above).
    Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their 
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as 
endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical habitat, if 
any is designated. Regulations implementing this interagency 
cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. 
Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with the 
Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of a species proposed for listing or result in destruction or 
adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is 
listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal 
agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out 
are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or 
destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action 
may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible 
Federal agency must enter into formal consultation with the Service.
    For the gladecress, Federal agency actions that may require 
consultation would include federally funded or permitted actions 
occurring within the species' habitat, specifically within the zone of 
Weches outcrops in Sabine and San Augustine Counties. Anticipated 
actions include provision of Federal financial and technical assistance 
through the United States Department of Agriculture; permits issued by 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for installation of interstate 
pipelines and associated infrastructure; provision of Federal Highway 
Administration funds for road projects; provision of Department of 
Housing and Urban Development funds for municipal and residential 
construction and infrastructure projects in small towns along SH 21 
within the range of gladecress; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)-
issued section 404 and section 10 permits for wetland crossings that 
are part of linear projects such as roads, transmission lines, or 
pipelines; and Federal Emergency Management Agency-funded actions. Also 
subject to consultation would be provision of Federal funds to State 
and private entities through Federal programs such as the Service's 
Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, State Wildlife Grant Program, 
and Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Program.
    For the rose-mallow, Federal agency actions that may require 
consultation would include federally funded or permitted actions 
occurring within the species habitat. These actions could include: (1) 
New construction and maintenance of roads or highways by the Federal 
Highway Administration; (2) issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act and 
section 10 permits by the USACE for Federally funded activities within 
Federal jurisdictional wetlands; (3) management and any other landscape 
altering activities on Federal lands administered by the Fish and 
Wildlife Service and USDA Forest Service; and (4) Federal Highway 
Administration funds given to TxDOT for SH ROW maintenance.
    The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of 
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered and 
threatened plants. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, 
codified at 50 CFR 17.61, apply to endangered plants. These 
prohibitions, in part, make it illegal for any person subject to the 
jurisdiction of the United States to import or export, transport in 
interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a commercial activity, 
sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce, or remove and 
reduce the species to possession from areas under Federal jurisdiction. 
In addition, for plants listed as endangered, the Act prohibits the 
malicious damage or destruction on areas under Federal jurisdiction and 
the removal, cutting, digging up, or damaging or destroying of such 
plants in knowing violation of any State law or regulation, including 
State criminal trespass law. It is also unlawful to violate any 
regulation pertaining to plant species listed as threatened or 
endangered (section 9(a)(2)(E) of the Act). Certain exceptions apply to 
agents of the Service and State conservation agencies. Chapter 88 of 
the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code lists plant species as State 
threatened or endangered, with the same status as the Federal 
designation, immediately upon completion of final Federal listing. The 
State prohibits taking and or possession for commercial

[[Page 55993]]

sale of all or any part of an endangered, threatened, or protected 
plant from public land (defined as State-owned and land belonging to 
local governments). The TPWD requires commercial permits for the 
commercial use of listed plants collected from private land. Scientific 
permits are required for collection of endangered plants or plant parts 
from public lands for scientific or education purposes.
    We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving endangered and threatened wildlife species under certain 
circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 
17.62 for endangered plants, and at 17.72 for threatened plants. With 
regard to endangered plants, a permit must be issued for the following 
purposes: For scientific purposes or to enhance the propagation or 
survival of the species.
    It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1, 
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at 
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not 
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this 
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a proposed 
listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of species 
proposed for listing. The following activities could potentially result 
in a violation of section 9 of the Act; this list is not comprehensive:
    (1) Unauthorized collecting, handling, possessing, selling, 
delivering, carrying, or transporting of the gladecress or the rose-
mallow, including import or export across State lines and international 
boundaries, except for properly documented antique specimens of these 
taxa at least 100 years old, as defined by section 10(h)(1) of the Act.
    (2) Unauthorized removal, damage, or destruction of gladecress or 
rose-mallow plants from populations located on State-owned land 
(highway ROW's) or on land owned by local governments.
    (3) Unauthorized removal, damage, or destruction of gladecress or 
rose-mallow plants on private land in violation of any State 
regulation, including criminal trespass.
    Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a 
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Corpus 
Christi Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT). Requests for copies of the regulations concerning listed 
animals and general inquiries regarding prohibitions and permits may be 
addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species 
Permits, 6300 Ocean Drive, Unit 5837, Corpus Christi, Texas 78412-5837 
(telephone 361-994-9005; facsimile 361-994-8262).
    If the gladecress and the rose-mallow are listed under the Act, the 
State of Texas's Endangered Species Act (Texas Administrative Code 
Chapter 88:88.001-88.012) is automatically invoked, which would also 
prohibit take of these species and encourage conservation by State 
government agencies. Further, the State may enter into agreements with 
Federal agencies to administer and manage any area required for the 
conservation, management, enhancement, or protection of endangered 
species. Funds for these activities could be made available under 
section 6 of the Act (Cooperation with the States). Thus, the Federal 
protection afforded to these species by listing them as endangered 
species will be reinforced and supplemented by protection under State 
law.

Critical Habitat

Background

    It is our intent to discuss below only those topics directly 
relevant to the designation of critical habitat for Texas golden 
gladecress and Neches River rose-mallow in this section of the proposed 
rule.
    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
    (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the 
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which 
are found those physical or biological features
    (a) Essential to the conservation of the species and
    (b) Which may require special management considerations or 
protection; and
    (2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas 
are essential for the conservation of the species.
    Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use 
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring 
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures 
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and 
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated 
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law 
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live 
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where 
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise 
relieved, may include regulated taking.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation 
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is 
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect 
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or 
other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government 
or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require 
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by 
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency 
funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species 
or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2) 
of the Act would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or 
adverse modification finding, the obligation of the Federal action 
agency and the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but 
to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction 
or adverse modification of critical habitat.
    Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, 
areas within the geographic area occupied by the species at the time it 
was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they 
contain physical or biological features (1) are essential to the 
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special 
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical 
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best 
scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological 
features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as 
space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those 
physical and biological features within an area, we focus on the 
principal biological or physical constituent elements (primary 
constituent elements such as roost sites, nesting grounds, seasonal 
wetlands, water quality, tide, soil type) that are essential to the 
conservation of the species. Primary constituent elements are the 
elements of physical or biological features that, when laid out in the 
appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement to provide for a species' 
life-history processes, are essential to the conservation of the 
species.
    Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, 
we can

[[Page 55994]]

designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographic area 
occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination 
that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. For 
example, an area currently occupied by the species but that was not 
occupied at the time of listing may be essential to the conservation of 
the species and may be included in the critical habitat designation. We 
designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographic area 
occupied by a species only when a designation limited to its range 
would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species.
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on 
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on 
Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in 
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information 
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)), 
and our associated Information Quality Guidelines, provide criteria, 
establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions 
are based on the best scientific data available. They require our 
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of 
the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources 
of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical 
habitat.
    When we are determining which areas should be designated as 
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the 
information developed during the listing process for the species. 
Additional information sources may include the recovery plan for the 
species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans 
developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and 
studies, biological assessments, other unpublished materials, or 
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
    Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another 
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a 
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that 
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. 
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that 
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed 
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the 
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical 
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation 
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) regulatory 
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act 
for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened 
species; and (3) the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act if actions 
occurring in these areas may affect the species. Federally funded or 
permitted projects affecting listed species outside their designated 
critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some 
cases. These protections and conservation tools will continue to 
contribute to recovery of this species. Similarly, critical habitat 
designations made on the basis of the best available information at the 
time of designation will not control the direction and substance of 
future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or other 
species conservation planning efforts if new information available at 
the time of these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.

Prudency Determination

    Section 4 of the Act, as amended, and implementing regulations (50 
CFR 424.12), require that, to the maximum extent prudent and 
determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at the time the 
species is determined to be an endangered or threatened species. Our 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1) state that the designation of 
critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of the following 
situations exist: (1) The species is threatened by taking or other 
activity and the identification of critical habitat can be expected to 
increase the degree of threat to the species; or (2) the designation of 
critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species.
    There is no evidence that the Texas golden gladecress or Neches 
River rose-mallow are threatened by collection and no evidence to 
support the conclusion that there would be increases in threats to both 
species if critical habitat were designated. These species are not 
targets of collection and the areas proposed for critical habitat 
designation either have restricted public access or are already readily 
open to the public. Several of the identified threats to both species 
are associated with human access to the sites; however, we do not 
anticipate the designation of critical habitat to increase the level of 
these threats. Threats to gladecress associated with human access are 
the loss and degradation of gladecress habitat due to quarry 
excavations, natural gas-related construction, land conversion to pine 
plantations, and exposure to agricultural herbicides. These activities 
take place primarily on private lands, and the designation of critical 
habitat will not likely influence whether these activities continue. 
For the rose-mallow, 10 of the 12 sites are accessible with landowner 
permission having been granted to the quarry companies. Road and SH ROW 
maintenance and construction projects, exposure of plants to herbicide, 
nonnative species and native woody vegetation encroachment, and the 
alteration of the sites' hydrology have been ongoing throughout the 
range of the species. These threats, or any other identified threat, 
are not expected to increase as a result of critical habitat 
designation.
    In the absence of finding that the designation of critical habitat 
would increase threats to a species, if there are any benefits to a 
critical habitat designation, then a prudent finding is warranted. The 
potential benefits of critical habitat to the Texas golden gladecress 
and Neches River rose-mallow include: (1) Triggering consultation under 
section 7 of the Act, in new areas for actions in which there may be a 
Federal nexus where it would not otherwise occur, because, for example, 
Federal agencies were not aware of the potential impacts of an action 
on the species; (2) focusing conservation activities on the species and 
its habitat; (3) providing educational benefits to State or county 
governments or private entities; and (4) preventing people from causing 
inadvertent harm to the species. Therefore, because we have determined 
that the designation of critical habitat will not likely increase the 
degree of threat to Texas golden gladecress and Neches River rose-
mallow and may provide some measure of benefit, we find that 
designation of critical habitat is prudent for the Texas golden 
gladecress and Neches River rose-mallow.

Critical Habitat Determinability

    As alluded to above, section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the 
designation of critical habitat concurrently with the species' listing 
``to the maximum extent prudent and determinable.'' Our regulations at 
50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state that critical habitat is not determinable 
when one or both of the following situations exist:
    (i) Information sufficient to perform required analyses of the 
impacts of the designation is lacking, or
    (ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well 
known to permit identification of an area as critical habitat.


[[Page 55995]]


When critical habitat is not determinable, the Act provides for an 
additional year to publish a critical habitat designation (16 U.S.C. 
1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
    We reviewed the available information pertaining to the biological 
needs of these species and habitat characteristics where these species 
are located. This and other information represent the best scientific 
data available, and the available information is sufficient for us to 
identify areas to propose as critical habitat. Therefore, we conclude 
that the designation of critical habitat is determinable for the Texas 
golden gladecress and the Neches River rose-mallow.

Physical or Biological Features for Texas Golden Gladecress

    In accordance with sections 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act 
and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the 
geographic area occupied by the species at the time of listing to 
designate as critical habitat, we consider the physical or biological 
features that are essential to the conservation of the species and 
which may require special management considerations or protection. 
These include, but are not limited to:
    (1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal 
behavior;
    (2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or 
physiological requirements;
    (3) Cover or shelter;
    (4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development) 
of offspring; and
    (5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are 
representative of the historical, geographic, and ecological 
distributions of a species.
    We derive the specific physical or biological features required for 
Texas golden gladecress from studies of the species' habitat, ecology, 
and life history as described below. We have determined that the 
following physical or biological features are essential for Texas 
golden gladecress:
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
    The Weches Glades form a small patch system of habitats, endemic to 
the outcrops of marine sediment and glauconitic clays that occur 
primarily in Nacogdoches, San Augustine, and Sabine Counties (Nature 
Serve 2009, p. 6). The average width of the Weches outcrop region 
varies from 2-5 mi (3.2-8 km) (Sellards et al. 1932 in Diggs et al. 
2006, p. 56) and encompasses the route of SH 21. All known Texas golden 
gladecress populations occur, or formerly occurred, within 1 mi (1.6 
km) of SH 21. Populations in the closest proximity to each other were 
part of the Caney Creek Glade Complex that contained five of the eight 
known sites. This entire complex was located within an area that did 
not exceed 1 mi (1.6 km) from the most northern to most southern plant 
occurrences, and extended less than 0.32 miles (0.53 km) from east to 
west. The Chapel Hill and Geneva sites were outliers to the Caney Creek 
Complex, located 4.5 mi (7.24 km) and 11.4 mi (18.3 km), respectively, 
to the southeast. Multiple glades in close proximity to one another, as 
exemplified by the Caney Creek Glade Complex, may have facilitated 
cross fertilization between populations, enhancing genetic diversity, 
and perhaps providing space for population expansion. Potential exists 
for other areas within the range of the gladecress to support glade 
complexes. Singhurst (2011, pers. comm.), using aerial photography and 
maps of geology and soils, has identified clusters of potential glade 
sites in additional areas within the Weches Formation within 1 mi (1.6 
km) to the north and south of SH 21 as it traverses San Augustine 
County, as well as into Sabine County. We are also aware that areas 
adjacent to the Chapel Hill and Geneva sites have a high likelihood of 
suitable habitat.
    Due to loss, degradation, and fragmentation of habitat, optimal 
glade size or density of glade complexes needed to support long-term 
survival of Texas golden gladecress is not well understood, but 
monitoring of the extant sites between 1999-2009 showed that the 
gladecress could persist on small, disjunct sites where it is able to 
grow and reproduce, at least in the short term. Based on the best 
available information, a better model of a healthy population and 
habitat site may be found by looking at the historic CCG Site 6, which 
supported the largest population ever documented. This former site was 
contained within an area of approximately 10 ac (4 ha) and supported 
thousands of plants until the mid-1990's, when it was destroyed by 
mining excavation. This glade complex consisted of long, sheeted 
openings that presented a patchwork appearance of soil, rock, and 
glades (Singhurst 2012d, pers. comm.). This site likely represented 
ideal glade conditions for this species because it supported a healthy 
and robust population.
    The best available information regarding gene flow between 
gladecress populations is that seed dispersal may be limited. Seeds 
appear to fall to the ground near the parent plant and probably stay in 
place unless water movement, such as flooding, carries them to other 
suitable habitats. The Weches outcrops occur in a scattered fashion 
across the landscape with habitat that is unsuitable for gladecress 
lying between outcrops.
    Pollinators specific to Texas golden gladecress have not been 
identified. Native bees in the Families Andrenidae and Halictidae 
(sweat bees), including the species Halictus ligatus (sweat bee), were 
observed carrying pollen from Leavenworthia crassa (fleshyfruit 
gladecress) and L. stylosa (cedar gladecress) in northern Alabama 
(Llyod 1965, pp. 106-115). Although representatives of these bee 
families are found across eastern Texas (Warriner 2012b, pers. comm.), 
there is no documentation of them visiting Texas golden gladecress. 
Busch and Urban (2011, p. 18) indicated the efficacy of these 
pollinators has not been studied in Leavenworthia. Texas golden 
gladecress is believed to be self-compatible and may not rely solely on 
pollinators for fertilization (see Biology section). Based on this 
information, close proximity of glade outcrops to one another may help 
to facilitate cross pollination and seed dispersal.
    Therefore, based on the information above, we identify glauconite 
exposures (outcrops) of the Weches Geologic Formation, found within 
Weches glades and prairies, as an essential physical feature for the 
species' continued existence. Although these individual exposures can 
be small in size and scattered throughout a glade or glades, ideally 
the glades will occur in multiples (a complex).
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or 
Physiological Requirements
    The geology and soils of Texas golden gladecress sites are unique 
in East Texas, and the species shows a tight association with these 
features (Singhurst, 2011, pers. comm.). The Weches Formation is 
characterized by the mineral glauconite and contains glauconitic clays, 
calcareous marls, rich marine fossil deposits, and mudstone (George and 
Nixon 1990, pp. 117-118). In some areas, leaching of the soluble 
ingredients in the glauconite has concentrated iron in ironstone (iron-
bearing limonite). Surface exposures of the Weches Formation are 
usually on slopes (due to erosion) and typically are small; 16.4-65.6 
ft (5-20 m) in width, and generally not exceeding 328 ft (100 m) in 
length (George and Nixon 1990 p. 118). The Weches Formation affects the 
local topography and vegetation, with cap hills and escarpments where 
the

[[Page 55996]]

erosion-resistant ironstone layers occur, and more rolling topography 
where ironstone is not present (Diggs et al. 2006, p. 56).
    The Weches outcrops create limited areas of relatively thin 
alkaline soils in a region of mostly sandy soils (USFWS 1992, pp. 3-4) 
resulting in natural glade communities on the shallow, seasonally 
saturated, but frequently dry soils (Bezanson 2000 in Diggs et al. 
2006, p. 56). Soils associated with Weches glades are shallow, rocky, 
and basic in pH (alkaline), inhibiting the presence of woody species 
(Nature Serve, 2009, p. 6). Soils underlying known Texas golden 
gladecress sites appear to be inclusions in the Nacogdoches, Trawick, 
or Bub soils series (USDA 2009, entire). George (1987, p. 18) found 
that the soil profile of three Weches outcrops had a surface layer of 
sandy loam or sandy clay loam with impermeable glauconite clay at a 
depth of about 19.7 inches (50 cm). Measurements of soil pH ranged from 
7.6 to 8.1 (George 1987, p. 18). Weches soils contain exceptionally 
high levels of calcium (2,500-6,000 parts per million (ppm)) from 
fossilized shells, as well as high levels of potassium (170-250 ppm) 
and magnesium (250-400 ppm). The basic pH at these sites results from 
dissolution of the calcareous component of the rich marine fossil fauna 
of the Weches Formation (George 1987, p. 47). These conditions produce 
a harsh, variable environment that becomes saturated and seepy in cool 
moist months and during rainy seasons, but that dries out, becoming 
parched and hard, during hot summer months (USFWS 1992, pp. 3-4). 
Leavenworthia species are dormant by early summer, helping them to 
survive the dry period as seed; this dormancy is likely one of the 
major evolutionary adaptations in this genus enabling its species to 
endure the extreme droughty conditions of late summer (Quarterman 1950, 
p. 5).
    Texas golden gladecress is dependent on late fall-winter 
precipitation levels that keep the glade sediments saturated and leave 
pooled water on the small outcrop ledges. Based on observations of 
gladecress population sites over a 10-year period within the Weches 
outcrops and glade complexes, Texas golden gladecress appeared to be 
highly restricted to wet microhabitats and ``even within suitable 
sites, the species seems limited to only seasonal seep runs and vernal 
pools within the site'' (Singhurst 2011a, pers. comm.). The species' 
apparent requirement for direct contact with seeps and shallow puddles 
on exposed ledges of outcrop implies reliance on precipitation that 
falls directly onto the ledges and possibly on down-slope movement of 
water percolating through the sediment atop the clay layer. George 
(1988, pp. 2-4) observed that the Weches outcrops were waterlogged in 
the spring due to the clay stratum, with water percolating until it hit 
the clay, then moving laterally and exiting on the hillsides where the 
outcrops are. At the Chapel Hill site, gladecress was found on and 
around a few spots where the glauconite was exposed rather than in the 
dense cover of the herbaceous matrix (Carr 2005, p. 2). The glauconite 
exposures at this site were wet from seeps or due to percolating water 
moving laterally on top of the bedrock.
    All known Texas golden gladecress populations have been found on 
open, sunny exposures on Weches outcrops. Baskin and Baskin (1988, p. 
837) indicated that a high light requirement was common among the 
endemic plants of rock outcrop plant communities in the unglaciated 
eastern United States. This obligate need for high light has been 
supported by field observations showing that these eastern outcrop 
endemics, such as Texas golden gladecress: Grow on well-lighted portion 
of the outcrops but not in adjacent shaded forests; photosynthesize 
best in full sun, with a reduction in the presence of heavy shading; 
and compete poorly with plants that shade them (Baskin and Baskin 1988, 
p. 837).
    Texas golden gladecress apparently persists on its specialized 
habitat, at least in part, due to a lack of competition from taller or 
more vigorous plants. Rollins (1963, p. 17) found that, while 
Leavenworthia alabamica and L. crassa grew normally and produced seed 
in a weeded portion of an experimental plot, plants from both species 
died in the unweeded portion of the plot where Poa annua (annual 
bluegrass) was allowed unrestricted growth. Lloyd (1965, pp. 86-87) 
observed that plants of these two species competed poorly with the 
invading weed flora in abandoned agricultural fields.
    The Weches outcrops and surrounding glade sites show large seasonal 
variation in species dominance as a result of the shift from saturated 
soils in winter-spring to hard, dry soil in summer (George and Nixon 
1990, pp. 120-124). Singhurst (2012, pers. comm.) described the Chapel 
Hill site as having bare spots on the tops of the glade with seasonal 
pools of water (similar to vernal pools). At this site the gladecress 
would bloom, seed, dry out, and die back to be replaced in summer by 
drier, more succulent plants. Quarterman (1986 in George and Nixon 
1990, p. 124) found that the thinner soils in Tennessee glades were 
dominated in spring by Leavenworthia spp., Minuartia patula (Pitcher's 
sandwort), and Sedum pulchellum (stonecrop), and that Sporobolus 
vaginiflorus (poverty dropseed) would be the dominant grass on these 
soils in summer. Singhurst observed similar species composition shifts 
at Texas golden gladecress sites (Singhurst 2012e, pers. comm.). Even 
with this seasonal shift, there are a number of characteristic 
herbaceous species that occur in association with gladecress (Table 6) 
(Bridges 1988, p. II-35; TNC 2003, p. 4; Carr 2006, p. 4). Carr (2006, 
p. 2) found that gladecress at the Chapel Hill site shared the rocky 
outcrop ledges with a sparse covering of Eleocharis sp. (spike sedge), 
Calamintha arkansana (Ozark savory), and an unidentified moss. He 
described the 40-50 gladecress plants as ``growing on or among clumps 
of moss on these soggy, unshaded glauconite exposures.''

                                Table 6--Characteristic Flora of Weches Outcrops
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Scientific name                                            Common name
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Primary Characteristic Herbs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sedum pulchellum*...............................  stonecrop.
Clinopodium arkansanum*.........................  Ozark savory.
Minuartia patula*...............................  Pitcher's sandwort.
Minuartia drummondii*...........................  Drummond sandwort.
Valerianella radiata*...........................  beaked cornsalad.
Isoetes butleri.................................  Butler's quillwort.
Allium drummondii*..............................  Drummond wild-garlic.
Calamintha arkansana............................  low calamint.

[[Page 55997]]

 
Portulaca oleracea*.............................  common purslane.
Phemeranthus parviflorus*.......................  sunbright.
Eleocharis occulata*............................  limestone spikerush.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Some Other Potential Species
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erigeron sp.....................................  fleabane.
Physaria pallida................................  white bladderpod.
Desmanthus illinoensis..........................  Illinois bundleflower.
Euphorbia dentate...............................  toothed spurge.
Croton monanthogynus............................  doveweed.
Dalea purpurea..................................  prairie clover.
Houstonia spp...................................  Bluetts.
Nassella leucotricha............................  Texas wintergrass.
Boutelous curtipendula..........................  sideoats grama.
Eleocharis compressa............................  flat-stemmed spikerush.
Sporobolus vaginiflorus*........................  poverty dropseed.
Thelesperma filifolium..........................  slender greenthread.
Arnoglossum plantagineum........................  groovestem Indian plantain.
Plantago virginica..............................  Virginia plantain.
Schizachyrium scoparium.........................  little bluestem.
Polytaenia nuttallii............................  Nuttall's prairie parsley.
Onosmodium bejariense...........................  softhair marbleseed.
Liatris mucronata...............................  narrowleaf gayfeather.
Draba cuneifolia................................  wedgeleaf draba.
Paronychia virginica............................  Whitlow wort.
Camassia scilloides.............................  wild hyacinth.
Zigadenus nuttallii.............................  Nuttall's death cama.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Algae
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nostoc spp......................................  Cyanobacteria.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Frequent Woody Species
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Juniperus virginiana............................  eastern redcedar.
Pinus taeda.....................................  loblolly pine.
Liquidambar styraciflua.........................  sweetgum.
Cornus drummondii...............................  roughleaf dogwood.
Sideroxylon lanuginosum.........................  gum bumelia.
Sophora affinis.................................  Texas sophora.
Quercus muhlengergii............................  Chinquapin oak.
Opuntia sp......................................  prickly pear cactus.
Rhus glabra.....................................  smooth sumac.
Rhamnus lanceolata..............................  sanceleaf buckthorn.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Strong association with gladecress sites.

    Therefore, based on the information above, we identify as essential 
physical features for Texas golden gladecress the following: Open, 
sunny exposures of Weches outcrops within Weches glade plant 
communities that are characterized by the species listed in Table 6. 
These exposures should have relatively thin rocky soils that are 
classified within Nacogdoches, Trawick, or Bub soils mapping units. 
There must be bare, exposed bedrock on top-level surfaces or rocky 
ledges with very shallow depressions where rainwater can pool or 
seepage can collect.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of 
Offspring
    In order to undergo successful reproduction, Texas golden 
gladecress requires sufficient moisture in late fall to germinate, and 
in winter-spring to support growth, flowering, and fruit production. At 
sites where the gladecress depends on seeps to provide its water, there 
must be sufficient sediment and/or slope at elevations above its 
habitat site in order to catch rainfall and allow its slow percolation 
down to the plant's location. For those gladecress plants growing in 
what appear to be microdepressions that occur on fairly level spots in 
more gently sloping ground, the water supply may be more due to direct 
rainfall and dew collection. The species appears to be dependent on its 
seedbank for its continued existence, so habitat should not be 
subjected to activities that would remove the seedbank. Therefore, 
based on the information above, we identify as essential physical 
features needed for Texas golden gladecress' successful reproduction 
outcrops that have intact hydrology and for which the surface features 
and gladecress seedbed are undisturbed.
Habitats Protected From Disturbance or Representative of the 
Historical, Geographic, and Ecological Distributions of the Species
    Texas golden gladecress has a restricted geographic distribution. 
Its historic range did not extend further than approximately 12 miles 
(19 km) from the most southeastern to the most northwestern documented 
locations and all occurrences were located within a 3.1-mile-wide band 
(5 km-wide) around SH 21. The gladecress is also an endemic species, 
highly restricted to a specific habitat type that occurs in a

[[Page 55998]]

scattered or patchy fashion across the landscape, with large areas of 
unsuitable habitat interspersed. The extant populations exhibit a high 
degree of isolation, being separated from each other by distances of 
4.5 mi (7.2 km) and 7 mi (11.3 km), respectively, between the northern 
(CCG Site 1), central (Chapel Hill), and southern (Geneva) populations. 
All three populations are small in terms of areal extent and number of 
individual plants. Given their geographic isolation and small size, all 
of the sites are important for the conservation of the species. In 
addition, we have determined that gladecress likely persists at the CCG 
Site 7, even though access has been denied since 1988. Combined, these 
sites represent the best habitat for the species throughout the 
geographic range. The loss of any of the known populations would result 
in a high risk of extinction for the remaining populations. Mapping of 
potential glade sites by TPWD shows that there is suitable habitat near 
the three extant populations, providing sites for population expansion, 
thereby increasing its resiliency. These areas are representative of 
habitat across the species range and provide the potential for 
populations to spread, thereby enhancing recovery opportunities. 
Therefore, we do not believe that unoccupied areas outside of the 
geographic range are needed.
    The long-term effects of climate change on the species are less 
clear with regard to whether any additional areas outside of those 
discussed above are needed for the species' future. See the Factor A 
discussion of Climate Change for a summary of projected climate changes 
in Texas and how these changes may affect the Texas golden gladecress. 
The information currently available on the effects of global climate 
change and increasing temperatures does not make sufficiently precise 
estimates of the location and severity of the effects. Nor are we 
currently aware of any climate change information specific to the 
habitat of Texas golden gladecress that would indicate what areas may 
become important to the species in the future. We do not believe the 
species can easily adapt and colonize new habitats due to its habitat 
specificity. Therefore, based on the best available information, we are 
not identifying areas outside of those currently occupied as areas that 
may be suitable due to the effects of climate change.

Primary Constituent Elements for Texas Golden Gladecress

    Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to 
identify the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of Texas golden gladecress in areas occupied at the time 
of listing, focusing on the features' primary constituent elements. We 
consider primary constituent elements to be the specific elements of 
physical or biological features that, when laid out in the appropriate 
quantity and spatial arrangement to provide for a species' life-history 
processes, are essential to the conservation of the species.
    Based on our current knowledge of the physical or biological 
features and habitat characteristics required to sustain the species' 
life-history processes, we determine that the primary constituent 
elements specific to Texas golden gladecress are:
    (1) Exposed outcrops of the Weches Formation within Weches 
prairies. Within the outcrop sites, there must be bare, exposed bedrock 
on top-level surfaces or rocky ledges with small depressions where 
rainwater or seepage can collect. The prairie openings should support 
Weches Glade herbaceous plant communities.
    (2) Thin layers of rocky, alkaline soils, underlain by glauconite 
clay (greenstone, ironstone, bluestone), that are found only on the 
Weches Formation. Appropriate soils are in the series classifications 
Nacogdoches clay loam, Trawick gravelly clay loam, or Bub clay loam, 
ranging in slope 1-15 percent.
    (3) The outcrop ledges should occur within the glade such that 
Texas golden gladecress plants remain unshaded for a significant 
portion of the day and trees should be far enough away from the 
outcrop(s) that leaves do not accumulate within the gladecress habitat. 
The habitat should be relatively clear of nonnative and native invasive 
plants, especially woody species, or with only a minimal level of 
invasion.

Special Management Considerations or Protection for Texas Golden 
Gladecress

    When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific 
areas within the geographic area occupied by the species at the time of 
listing contain features that are essential to the conservation of the 
species and which may require special management considerations or 
protection.
    The features essential to the conservation of gladecress may 
require special management considerations or protection to reduce the 
following threats:
     Actions that remove the soils and alter the surface 
geology of the glades;
     Building or paving over the glades;
     Construction or excavation upslope that alters water 
movement (sheet flow or seepage) downslope to gladecress sites;
     Planting trees adjacent to the edges of an outcrop 
resulting in shading of the glade and accumulations of leaf litter and 
tree debris;
     Encroachment by nonnative and native invading trees, 
shrubs, and vines that shade the glade;
     The use and timing of application of certain herbicides 
that can harm gladecress seedlings; and
     Access by cattle to gladecress sites where habitat and 
plants may be trampled.
    Management activities that could ameliorate these threats include 
(but are not limited to):
     Avoiding Weches glades when planning the location of 
quarries, well pads, roads, other facilities or structures, or pipeline 
routes, through glade complexes;
     Avoiding above-ground construction and/or excavations in 
locations that would interfere with natural water movement to 
gladecress habitat sites;
     Locating suitable habitat and determining the presence or 
absence of the species and identifying areas with glade complexes and 
protecting or restoring as many complexes as possible;
     Extending outreach to all landowners, including private 
and State, to raise awareness of the plant and its specialized habitat;
     Providing technical or financial assistance to landowners 
to help in the design and implementation of management actions that 
protect the plant and its habitat;
     Avoiding pine tree plantings near glades; and
     Management, including brush removal, to maintain an intact 
native glade vegetation community.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat for Texas Golden Gladecress

    As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best 
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. We reviewed 
all available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of the 
species. We are proposing to designate critical habitat in areas within 
the geographic area occupied by the Texas golden gladecress. In 
accordance with the Act and its implementing regulation at 50 CFR 
424.12(e), we also considered whether designating additional areas--
outside those currently occupied as well as those occupied at the time 
of listing--are necessary to ensure the conservation of

[[Page 55999]]

the species. We are not currently proposing to designate any areas 
outside the geographic area currently occupied by the species because 
we found that the currently occupied areas are sufficient for the 
conservation of the species.
Areas Occupied by the Texas Golden Gladecress
    As required by section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act, for the purpose of 
designating critical habitat for Texas golden gladecress, we defined 
the geographic area currently occupied by the species. Generally, we 
define occupied areas as those where recent surveys in 2012 confirmed 
the species was present (Singhurst 2012f, pers. comm.). For one area, 
occupancy by the species has not been confirmed since 1988 (TXNDD 2012, 
entire); however, there have been no recent surveys due to lack of 
access to the properties. For the purposes of designation of critical 
habitat, we are considering this area to be currently occupied because 
the species was known from this area in the past and the habitat 
conditions that support the species appear intact (based on aerial 
imagery), except for the growth of some woody vegetation in some areas. 
In total, we found four areas currently occupied by the Texas golden 
gladecress at the time it is listed.
Areas Unoccupied at the Time of Listing
    We considered whether there were any specific areas outside the 
geographic area found to be occupied by the Texas golden gladecress 
that are essential for the conservation of the species as required by 
section 3(5)(A)(ii) of the Act. First, we evaluated whether there was 
sufficient area for the conservation of the species within the occupied 
areas determined above.
    To guide what would be considered needed for the conservation of 
the species, we relied upon recommendations in a conservation plan for 
the San Augustine Glades developed by TNC (TNC 2003, p. 8). This served 
as a basis for the number of populations considered necessary for the 
conservation of Texas golden gladecress. This plan came from TNC's 
structured conservation planning process that relied on a science team 
with expertise in the habitats and flora of East Texas. The plan was 
developed with input from representative experts from academia, 
botanical institutions, and Federal and State agencies. We consider 
this plan the best available scientific information to determine what 
is essential for the conservation of the Texas golden gladecress.
    This conservation plan concluded that at least eight viable 
populations of Texas golden gladecress, containing an average of 500 
individuals each, was the target conservation goal for the species (TNC 
2003, p. 8). We currently know of four confirmed populations of the 
species within the areas occupied by the species (see Mapping Texas 
Golden Gladecress Critical Habitat section below for how we mapped the 
occupied areas). We used information provided by a TPWD botanist to 
evaluate whether the four proposed areas might be sufficient to support 
eight viable populations of the species (Singhurst 2012a, pers. comm.; 
Singhurst 2012b, pers. comm.). The maps provided by this species expert 
identified potential glades within these areas by using: Soil map 
units; a time series of aerial photographs that depicted changes in 
land cover; and personal experience and expertise with the species, the 
habitat, and this area of East Texas (Singhurst 2012b, pers. comm.). 
These sites occur in discrete areas across the entire historic range of 
the species and include sites that represent the different landscape 
settings and soil types that have been documented at gladecress 
occurrences.
    Based on this analysis and our site visits, we determined that the 
proposed occupied areas contain suitable habitat (with special 
management) to expand current populations and support additional 
populations of Texas golden gladecress to meet the conservation goals 
for the species. We judge there to be suitable sites within the 
occupied areas that can be used for natural expansion of existing 
populations or possible future augmentation if needed and advised 
during future recovery planning and implementation. The habitat in the 
four occupied areas is sufficient for attaining the goal of eight 
viable populations throughout the geographic range of the species. 
Therefore, proposing additional areas as critical habitat outside of 
the currently occupied geographic areas would not be essential for the 
conservation of the species, and we have not proposed any additional 
areas.
 Mapping Texas Golden Gladecress Critical Habitat
    To determine the boundaries of proposed critical habitat units 
around the species areas occupied by the species, we used a geographic 
information system to overlay the appropriate soil maps over the 
occupied areas. The Texas golden gladecress is restricted to the Weches 
Formation, being found on only three soil map units: Nacogdoches clay 
loam 1-5 percent slope (NeE); Trawick gravelly clay loam 5-15 percent 
slope (TuD); and Bub clay loam 2-5 percent slope (BuB). We drew the 
proposed boundaries around contiguous segments of these soil mapping 
units from the online San Augustine and Sabine County's soils survey ( 
http://WebSoilSurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx) encompassing 
the occupied areas to form the boundary of the four critical units by 
using the edge of the soil type layer.
    When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries, we made 
every effort to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered 
by buildings, pavement, unpaved roads, and other structures because 
such lands lack physical or biological features for Texas golden 
gladecress. The scale of the maps we prepared under the parameters for 
publication within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the 
exclusion of such developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left 
inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this proposed 
rule have been excluded by text in the proposed rule and are not 
proposed for designation as critical habitat. Therefore, if the 
critical habitat is finalized as proposed, a Federal action involving 
these lands would not trigger section 7 consultation with respect to 
critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse modification unless 
the specific action would affect the physical or biological features in 
the adjacent critical habitat.
Summary
    In conclusion, we are proposing for designation as critical habitat 
specific areas that we have determined will be occupied at the time of 
listing and contain sufficient elements of the physical or biological 
features to support life-history processes essential for the 
conservation of the Texas golden gladecress that may require special 
management. We proposed four areas that meet the criteria for critical 
habitat. We determined that no additional areas are considered 
essential for the conservation of the species because the proposed 
occupied areas provide sufficient habitat to conserve the species.
    The critical habitat designation is defined by the map or maps, as 
modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of 
this document in the rule portion. We include more detailed information 
on the boundaries of the critical habitat designation in the preamble 
of this document. We will make the coordinates or plot points or both 
on

[[Page 56000]]

which each map is based available to the public on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2012-0064, on our Internet 
sites http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ElectronicLibrary/ElectronicLibrary_Main.cfm, and at the field office responsible for 
the designation (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above).

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation for Texas Golden Gladecress

    We are proposing four units as critical habitat for Texas golden 
gladecress. The critical habitat areas we describe below constitute our 
current best assessment of areas that meet the definition of critical 
habitat for Texas golden gladecress and all are considered to be 
occupied at the time of listing. The four areas we propose as critical 
habitat are: (1) Geneva; (2) Chapel Hill; (3) Southeast Caney Creek 
Glades; and (4) Northwest Caney Creek Glades. The approximate area of 
each proposed critical habitat unit is shown in Table 7.

                      Table 7--Proposed Critical Habitat Units for Texas Golden Gladecress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Total size  of
                   Critical habitat unit                     Private ac (ha)    State ac (ha)     all units  ac
                                                                                                      (ha)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Geneva.................................................         381 (154)              7(3)         388 (157)
2. Chapel Hill............................................          147 (59)            *3 (1)          150 (61)
3. Southeast Caney Creek Glades...........................           37 (15)             3 (1)           40 (16)
4. Northwest Caney Creek Glades...........................         767 (310)             8 (4)         775 (314)
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
    Total.................................................       1,332 (539)            21 (9)       1,353 (548)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* County owned
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.

    We present brief descriptions of all units, and the reasons why 
they meet the definition of critical habitat for Texas golden 
gladecress, below.

Unit 1: Geneva

    Unit 1 consists of 388 ac (157 ha) of private and State land 
located in northwest Sabine County, Texas. The unit is located 1.5 mi 
(2.3 km) south of Geneva, Texas, and 4.8 mi (7.7 km) north of Milam, 
Texas, and is bisected by SH 21. This unit is occupied at the time of 
listing and contains all of the features essential to the conservation 
of the species. Approximately 2 percent (7.3 ac (3 ha)) of the land is 
State-owned and is managed TxDOT ROW, and the Geneva Site gladecress 
population occurs, in part, within this ROW. The remaining 98 percent 
of the land is privately owned. The area directly adjacent to the ROW 
gladecress population has been cleared of woody vegetation within the 
recent past but is not fenced, so future land use is unknown. The 
geology and soils (PCE1 and PCE2) occur throughout the unit and aerial 
photography indicates that at least three other small, scattered open 
glades (as identified by TPWD) occur within the critical habitat unit.
    The features essential to the conservation of the species in this 
unit may require special management considerations or protection to 
address threats of woody plant invasion into open glades, possible 
changes in land use, including planting of loblolly or long-leaf pine 
to establish tree plantations, potential agricultural herbicide use to 
control woody plants, and destruction of the features by excavation, 
pipeline construction, or buildings.

Unit 2: Chapel Hill

    Unit 2 consists of 150 ac (61 ha) of privately owned land, with one 
county road ROW, in northwestern San Augustine County, Texas. This unit 
is located 1.0 mi (1.6 km) south of SH 21, due west of the San 
Augustine-Sabine County line, and lies alongside County Road (CR) 151. 
This unit is linear in shape, running from southeast to northwest. 
Aside from CR 151, all other land in Unit 2 is privately owned. Current 
land cover appears to be approximately 70 percent woody cover; much of 
the forest being rows of pine trees. This unit was occupied at the time 
of listing by a population that grows on a privately owned, unfenced 
tract of land that measures approximately 0.25 ac (0.1 ha) in size. The 
geology and soils PCEs occur throughout the unit, and aerial 
photography indicates that at least two other small, scattered, open 
glades (as identified by TPWD) occur within the critical habitat unit.
    The features essential to the conservation of the species in this 
unit may require special management considerations or protection to 
address threats of woody plant invasion into open glades throughout the 
unit, conversion of pasture to pine plantations, pipeline construction, 
and herbicide application.

Unit 3: Southeast Caney Creek Glades

    Unit 3 consists of 39.9 ac (16.2 ha) just southeast of the City of 
San Augustine, San Augustine County, Texas. Approximately 99 percent of 
the land within this unit is privately owned, with the other 1 percent 
being county ROW under the management of TxDOT. This unit is located 
0.8 mi (1.2 km) south from SH 21 near San Augustine, Texas, along the 
north side of FM 3483. This unit is located across Sunrise Road from a 
glauconite quarry. Although this site has not been visited since the 
late 1980's, we determined that the site still contains all the 
physical or biological features; therefore, we consider the unit 
occupied at the time of listing.
    The features essential to the conservation of the species in this 
unit may require special management considerations or protection to 
address threats of woody plant invasion into the natural prairie and 
glade habitat, and pipeline construction.

Unit 4: Northwest Caney Creek Glades

    Unit 4 consists of 775.3 ac (313.7 ha) that extends in a diagonal 
line from northeast to southwest, to the north and south of SH 21 just 
east of the City of San Augustine, San Augustine County, Texas. The 
unit is approximately 0.7 mi (1.1 km) wide. This unit is occupied at 
the time of listing. The geology and soils PCEs occur throughout the 
unit and aerial photography indicates that at least five other small, 
scattered, open glades (as identified by TPWD) occur within the 
critical habitat unit. Approximately 1 percent (7.8 ac) of the land is 
State-owned and managed ROW by the TxDOT. The remaining 99 percent is 
privately owned. Approximately 75-80 percent of the southern portion of 
Unit 4 is forested. Historically, this unit was occupied by four of the 
eight known occurrences of Texas golden gladecress;

[[Page 56001]]

however, three of the four have been lost to glauconite quarrying 
activities.
    The features essential to the conservation of the species in this 
unit may require special management considerations or protection to 
address threats of glauconite mining, woody plant invasion into the 
natural prairie and glade habitat, and pipeline construction.

Physical or Biological Features for Neches River Rose-mallow

    We derive the specific physical or biological features required for 
the Neches River rose-mallow from studies of the species' habitat, 
ecology, and life history as described below. We have determined that 
the following physical or biological features are essential for the 
Neches River rose-mallow:
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
    Neches River rose-mallow is endemic to open habitats in wetlands of 
the Pineywoods of East Texas (Gould 1975, p. 1; Correll and Johnston 
1979, p. 1). This ecoregion contains hardwood (oaks, hickory, and 
maple), pine species (loblolly, shortleaf, longleaf, and slash) (Gould 
1975, p. 10), and native woody and herbaceous plant associates (Warnock 
1995, pp. 14-15; Poole et al. 2007, pp. 264-265; see Table 3). Partial 
to full sun is required to allow for blooming.
    Habitat is characterized as sloughs, oxbows, terraces, and sand 
bars, and habitat is found along depressional or low-lying areas of the 
Neches River floodplains and Mud and Tantabogue Creek basins (Warnock 
1995, p. 11). Sites include both intermittent and perennial wetlands 
with plants located within 3.2 ft (1.0 m) of standing water, depending 
on current drought and precipitation levels (Warnock 1995, p. 14). 
Water levels at each site are variable, depending on proximity to 
water, amount of rainfall, and floodwaters. Habitat elevations range 
from 170 to 265 ft (51-80 m) above sea level (Warnock 1995, p. 13).
    Based on the best available information, we identify intermittent 
and perennial open waters in the Neches River basin and Mud and 
Tantabogue Creeks, with areas of seasonal or permanent inundation with 
native woody vegetation, as an essential physical feature for the 
species.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or 
Physiological Requirements
    The rose-mallow is typically found in open, flat areas of wetlands 
with hydric, alluvial sands or sandy loams of the Inceptisol or Entisol 
orders (Gould 1975, p. 10; Warnock 1995, pp. 11, 13; Diggs et al. 2006, 
pp. 46, 79). Intermittent wetlands are inundated during the winter 
months but become dry during the summer months (Warnock 1995, p. 11), 
yet flowing water is required for seed dispersal downstream (Warnock 
1995, p. 20; Scott 1997, p. 8; Reeves 2008, p. 3). Rivers of East Texas 
tend to overflow onto banks and floodplains (Diggs et al. 2006, p. 78), 
especially during the rainy season, thereby dispersing seed. 
Precipitation in Texas increases from the west to the east, making East 
Texas an area with comparatively higher annual precipitation, generally 
ranging from 35 to 50 in (89-127 cm) (Gould 1975, p. 10). Therefore, 
based on the information above, we identify hydric alluvial soils of 
seasonally or permanently inundated wetlands to be a physical or 
biological feature for the rose-mallow.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of 
Offspring
    Flowing water is required for seed dispersal, and seeds can remain 
buoyant for several hours (Warnock 1995, p. 20; Scott 1997, p. 8; 
Reeves 2008, p. 3). Long-distance seed dispersal ranges and upstream 
dispersal methods are unknown, but may be facilitated by avian species. 
Therefore, we identify flowing water for seed dispersal as a physical 
and biological feature for the rose-mallow.
Habitats Protected From Disturbance or Representative of the 
Historical, Geographic, and Ecological Distributions of the Species
    East Texas is subtropical with a wide range of extremes in weather 
(Diggs et al. 2006, p. 65). The native vegetation of this region 
evolved with, and is adapted to, recurrent temperature extremes (Diggs 
et al. 2006, p. 67). The Pineywoods region of East Texas is vulnerable 
to even small climatic shifts because it is ``balanced'' on the eastern 
edge of a dramatic precipitation gradient. Temperature increases that 
are projected in climate change scenarios will likely be associated 
with increases in transpiration and more frequent summer droughts. 
Decreased rainfall may result in an eastward shift in the forest 
boundary and replacement of the Pineywoods forest with scrubland (Diggs 
et al. 2006, p. 80). There may also be a northerly shift of southerly 
species based on climate models that predict increasing temperatures 
and, therefore, increasing evapotranspiration and decreasing regional 
precipitation and soil moisture (Diggs et al. 2006 p. 73).
    In October 2011, the Service observed that all known rose-mallow 
sites were impacted by extreme drought conditions. Normal habitat 
conditions include a cyclical pattern of wet winters and dry summers so 
the rose-mallow may have some tolerance of drought; however, the 
species may not be able to thrive in an environment with a higher 
frequency and intensity of droughts. Soil compaction from hogs and 
cattle, invasion from nonnative species, and herbivory may increase 
during periods of drought. Predictions of climate change are variable, 
and effects from climate change on this species are not fully 
understood. The information currently available on the effects of 
global climate change and increasing temperatures does not make 
sufficiently precise estimates of the location and severity of the 
effects specific to East Texas. Nor are we currently aware of any 
climate change information specific to the habitat of the rose-mallow 
that would indicate what areas may become important to this species in 
the future. Therefore, we are not identifying any areas outside of 
those currently occupied as areas that may be suitable for rose-mallow 
due to the effects of climate change.

Primary Constituent Elements for Neches River Rose-mallow

    Based on our current knowledge of the physical or biological 
features and habitat characteristics required to sustain the species' 
life-history processes, we determine that the primary constituent 
elements specific to the rose-mallow are intermittent or perennial 
wetlands within the Neches River floodplains or Mud and Tantabogue 
Creek basins that contain:
    (a) Hydric alluvial soils and flowing water when found in 
depressional sloughs, oxbows, terraces, side channels, or sand bars;
    (b) Native woody or associated herbaceous vegetation that has an 
open canopy providing partial to full sun exposure without nonnative 
species.
    With these proposed designations of critical habitat, we intend to 
identify the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of both species, through the identification of the 
appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement of the primary constituent 
elements sufficient to support the life-history processes of the 
species.

Special Management Considerations or Protection for Neches River Rose-
mallow

    When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific 
areas within the geographic area occupied by the

[[Page 56002]]

species at the time of listing contain features that are essential to 
the conservation of the species and which may require special 
management considerations or protection.
    Threats to those features that define the primary constituent 
elements for the rose-mallow include: (1) Alteration of naturalized 
flow regimes through projects that require channelization; (2) water 
diversions from streams and rivers and changes to the overall 
hydrology; (3) encroachment from native woody riparian species and 
nonnative species; (4) detrimental roadside management practices 
including inappropriate frequency and timing of mowing during the 
species' blooming period; (5) herbivory; and, (6) drought. Special 
management considerations or protection are required within critical 
habitat areas to address these threats. Management activities that 
could ameliorate these threats include, but are not limited to:
     Construction of cattle exclusion fencing to remedy 
herbivory at Lovelady;
     Restoration of the cattle stock pond back to a natural 
flatwoods pond at Lovelady;
     Coordination with TxDOT to establish and continue 
effective management along ROWs for control of native woody species and 
nonnatives (including, but not limited to mowing, brush-hogging, or 
other hand-clearing techniques) and completion of these techniques only 
during the appropriate life stages of the rose-mallow;
     Coordination with the ANRA and consultation with the USACE 
on the proposed construction of Lake Columbia Reservoir;
     Consultation between the Service and the USACE for any 
filling or draining of Federal jurisdictional wetlands; and
     Clearing or burning on the Davy Crockett NF for control of 
chinese tallow and to maintain an adequate level of openness in 
habitat.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat for Neches River Rose-mallow

    As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best 
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. We reviewed 
all available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of the 
species. We are proposing to designate critical habitat in areas within 
thegeographic area occupied by the rose-mallow. In accordance with the 
Act and its implementing regulation at 50 CFR 424.12(e), we also 
considered whether designating additional areas--outside those 
currently occupied as well as those occupied at the time of listing--
are necessary to ensure the conservation of the species. We are not 
currently proposing to designate any areas outside the geographic area 
currently occupied by the species because we found that the currently 
occupied areas are sufficient for the conservation of the species.
Areas Occupied by the Neches River Rose-mallow
    For the purpose of designating critical habitat for the rose-
mallow, we defined the geographic area currently occupied by the 
species as required by section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act. Generally, we 
define occupied areas based on the most recent field surveys available 
in 2011 and recent reports and survey information from the Davy 
Crockett NF, TPWD, TxDOT, and observations by species experts (Miller 
2011, pers. comm.; TXNDD 2012a, entire). Currently occupied areas for 
the Neches River rose-mallow are found in Trinity, Houston, Cherokee, 
Nacogdoches, and Harrison Counties in East Texas.
    In total, we found 11 areas currently occupied by the rose-mallow. 
Two of these areas have not been verified since the 1980s and mid-
1990s. However, the sites have not been modified to our knowledge such 
that they no longer have the physical or biological features essential 
for the rose-mallow, so we consider them still occupied. Four of the 
proposed critical habitat units currently occupied are introduction 
sites, three of which are located on Davy Crockett NF compartments and 
one in Mill Creek Gardens. The remaining five units support existing 
populations of rose-mallow and the plants were observed at each of 
these nine areas in 2011 (Creech 2011b, pers. comm.; Miller 2011, pers. 
comm.; TXNDD 2012a, entire).
Areas Unoccupied by the Neches River Rose-mallow
    We considered whether there were any specific areas outside the 
geographic area found to be occupied by the rose-mallow that are 
essential for the conservation of the species, as required by section 
3(5)(A)(ii) of the Act. We first evaluated whether there was sufficient 
area for the conservation of the species within the occupied areas 
determined above.
    To guide what would be considered needed for the conservation of 
the species, we relied upon Pavlik's 1996 (pp. 127-155) Minimum Viable 
Population (MVP) analysis tool, using the best known and available 
scientific information on the species' life history and reproductive 
characteristics and input from a species expert (Poole 2012a, pers. 
comm.). Based on this analysis, we concluded that at least 10 viable 
populations of the rose-mallow, containing an average of about 1,400 
individuals each, was the conservation goal for the species.
    We considered whether the 11 occupied areas contained sufficient 
habitat to meet these conservation goals. Each area currently has one 
population, so the occupied areas are sufficient for the ten 
populations needed. However, the overall estimates of the number of 
individuals in each population are low, with the largest population 
estimated to contain 750 individuals at compartment 55 in October 2010 
(Allen and Duty 2010, p. 4). All of the known populations currently 
have much fewer individuals than the conservation goals. Considering 
the size and amount of suitable habitat in the areas occupied by the 
species (see Mapping Neches River Rose-mallow Critical Habitat section 
below for how we mapped the occupied areas), we found that the 11 areas 
contain suitable habitat (with special management) to support increased 
population sizes to meet the conservation goals for the species.
    Based on this analysis and our site visits, we determined that the 
proposed occupied areas contain suitable habitat (with future special 
management) to support larger populations of rose-mallow to meet the 
conservation goals for the species. We judge there to be suitable sites 
within the occupied areas that can be used for natural expansion of the 
populations during future recovery planning and implementation. The 
habitat in the 11 occupied areas is sufficient for attaining the goal 
of 10 viable populations throughout the geographic range of the 
species. Therefore, proposing additional areas as critical habitat 
outside of the currently occupied geographic areas would not be 
essential for the conservation of the species, and we have not proposed 
any additional areas.
Mapping Neches River Rose-mallow Critical Habitat
    Once we determined the occupied areas, we next delineated the 
primary constituent elements. We estimated the area of habitat based on 
several key features determined through our 2011 field surveys and in 
past reports on habitat requirements. Since the rose-mallow prefers 
depressional or palustrine areas, we used topographic maps to identify 
changes in slope where the species was not anticipated to occur and 
where seeds were not likely to be dispersed by flowing water (i.e., the 
uplands). National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps were used to determine

[[Page 56003]]

habitat types within palustrine systems. All areas, when mapped with 
this layer in GIS, were associated with emergent, forested, or scrub-
shrub, with one area having an undetermined bottom (open water). All 
proposed critical habitat units are seasonally, permanently, or 
semipermanently flooded, which is consistent with our observations and 
available data. Due to the high variation of alluvial and hydric soils 
of rose-mallow habitat, soils were not mapped during this analysis but 
are still a general wetland indicator.
    To determine the boundaries of proposed critical habitat units 
around the areas occupied by the species, we focused primarily on 
available canopy openness. We used topographic and NWI maps for 
confirmation of suitable habitat, then used aerial imagery available 
through GoogleEarth to determine dense cover in the habitat. We drew 
boundaries around the open areas that delineate the outer boundary of 
our proposed critical habitat units. Critical habitat boundaries did 
not expand into heavily forested areas because those areas are too 
shady for the rose-mallow.
    When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries, we made 
every effort to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered 
by buildings, pavement, ROWs, and other structures because such lands 
lack physical or biological features for the rose-mallow. The scale of 
the maps we prepared under the parameters for publication within the 
Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of such 
developed lands, as is the case with Unit 4, where the rose-mallow is 
known to occur in habitat beneath the Hwy 204 overpass. Any such lands 
inadvertently left inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps 
of this proposed rule have been excluded by text in the proposed rule 
and are not proposed for designation as critical habitat. Therefore, if 
the critical habitat is finalized as proposed, a Federal action 
involving these lands would not trigger section 7 consultation with 
respect to critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse 
modification unless the specific action would affect the physical or 
biological features in the adjacent critical habitat.
Summary
    In conclusion, we are proposing for designation of critical habitat 
specific areas that we have determined will be occupied at the time of 
listing and contain sufficient elements of the physical or biological 
features essential in supporting life-history processes essential in 
the conservation of the rose-mallow that may require special 
management. We proposed 11 areas that meet the criteria for critical 
habitat. We determined that no additional areas are considered 
essential for the conservation of the species because the proposed 
occupied areas provided sufficient habitat to conserve the species.
    The critical habitat designation is defined by the map or maps, as 
modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of 
this document in the rule portion. We include more detailed information 
on the boundaries of the critical habitat designation in the preamble 
of this document. We will make the coordinates or plot points or both 
on which each map is based available to the public on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2012-0064, on our Internet 
sites http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ElectronicLibrary/ElectronicLibrary_Main.cfm, and at the field office responsible for 
the designation (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above).

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation for Neches River Rose-mallow

    The critical habitat areas we describe below constitute our current 
best assessment of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat 
for the rose mallow. The 11 areas we propose as critical habitat are: 
(1) Hwy 94 ROW, Trinity County; (2) Harrison County; (3) Lovelady, 
Houston County; (4) Hwy 204 ROW, Cherokee County; (5) Davy Crockett NF, 
compartment 55, Houston County; (6) Davy Crockett NF, compartment 11, 
Houston County; (7) Davy Crockett NF, compartment 20, Houston County; 
(8) Davy Crockett NF, compartment 16, Houston County; (9) Champion, 
Trinity County; (10) Mill Creek Gardens, Nacogdoches County; and (11) 
Camp Olympia, Trinity County. The approximate area of each proposed 
critical habitat unit is shown in Table 8.

                    Table 8--Proposed Critical Habitat Units for the Neches River Rose-mallow
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Private ac                      Federal ac     Size of unit
              Critical habitat unit                    (ha)        State ac (ha)       (ha)           ac (ha)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Highway 94 ROW...............................       2.3 (0.9)       1.1 (0.5)               0       3.4 (1.4)
2. Harrison County..............................      20.8 (8.4)               0               0      20.8 (8.4)
3. Lovelady.....................................       6.3 (2.5)               0               0       6.3 (2.5)
4. Highway 204 ROW..............................               0       8.7 (3.5)               0       8.7 (3.5)
5. Davy Crockett NF, compartment 55.............               0               0       3.8 (1.5)       3.8 (1.5)
6. Davy Crockett NF, compartment 11.............               0               0       7.3 (3.0)       7.3 (3.0)
7. Davy Crockett NF, compartment 20.............               0               0       3.4 (1.4)       3.4 (1.4)
8. Davy Crockett NF, compartment 16.............               0               0     32.8 (13.3)     32.8 (13.3)
9. Champion.....................................       2.9 (1.2)               0               0       2.9 (1.2)
10. Mill Creek Gardens..........................    95.3 (38. 6)               0               0    95.3 (38. 6)
11. Camp Olympia................................       0.2 (0.1)               0               0       0.2 (0.1)
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Acreages for All Critical Habitat       ..............  ..............  ..............    187.8 (76.0)
     Units:.....................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.

    We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they 
meet the definition of critical habitat for the rose-mallow, below.

Unit 1: Hwy 94 ROW

    Unit 1 consists of 3.4 ac (1.4 ha) on both the Hwy 94 ROW and on 
private land in Trinity County. The unit was occupied at the time of 
listing and contains the physical and biological features essential to 
the conservation of the species. The unit parallels Hwy 94 for 0.1 mi 
(0.2 km) to the north, beginning about 0.06 mi (0.09 km) from the now 
abandoned rest stop. From the easternmost boundary, Unit 1 then extends 
onto private lands (about 0.06 mi (0.09 km)) where it ends, abutting a

[[Page 56004]]

drainage ditch and levee. The unit parallels the ditch for about 0.8 mi 
(1.3 km) until vegetation becomes thick and the canopy cover increases. 
Hwy 94 ROW was first observed in 1955 with only herbarium specimens 
collected, and in 1968, over 100 plants were censused (TXNDD 2012a, pp. 
1-11). A total of 128 plants were counted in October 2011. Unit 1 is 
optimal habitat for the rose-mallow and is so indicated by the 
abundance of species observed this fall even during drought conditions.
    The features essential to the conservation of the species in Unit 1 
may require special management considerations or protection to address 
the threats of: hydrologic changes on the private lands, management of 
nonnative species and native woody vegetation, and appropriate timing 
and frequency of mowing and maintenance along the ROW.

Unit 2: Harrison County

    Unit 2 is between 0. 2-0.4 mi (0.3-0.6 km) north of Farm to Market 
road 2625 in Harrison County. The unit was occupied at the time of 
listing and contains the physical and biological features essential to 
the conservation of the species. A specimen of the rose-mallow was 
first collected from the site in 1980 by Elray Nixon from SFASU and was 
originally thought to have been H. laevis; the specimen was recently 
reexamined and confirmed as the rose-mallow (TXNDD 2012a, p. 12). 
Warnock (1995) provided only generic coordinates for the location of 
this site, but, using aerial photography, we were able to determine the 
location of this unit. Unit 2 is composed of 8.4 ha (20.8 ac) of 
occupied habitat entirely on private land; the landowner of the site is 
unknown. The physical and biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species include the large wetland or pond of hydric 
alluvial soils and open canopy.
    The features essential to the conservation of the species in Unit 2 
may require special management considerations or protection to address 
the threats of management of nonnative species and native woody 
vegetation, maintenance of natural hydrology of the wetland.

Unit 3: Lovelady

    Unit 3 was habitat within Houston County, found northwest of FM 
230, extending 0.3 mi (0.5 km) north and contains 6.3 ac (2.5 ha) of 
private land. The unit was occupied at the time of listing and contains 
the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of 
the species. The majority of land in Unit 3 belongs to TLC, who 
purchased the property in 2004 for the direct conservation of the rose-
mallow. This unit extends northward onto private lands where a known 
population of the rose-mallow was found during a 2004 TxDOT survey. 
Essential biological features within Unit 3 include a depressional 
creek bed within Tantabogue Creek basin; inundation from overflow of 
the creek from the northwest or from rain events that may allow ponding 
in low-lying areas; open habitat with native woody vegetation; and 
frequently inundated alluvial soils.
    The features essential to the conservation of the species in Unit 3 
may require special management considerations or protection to address 
the following threats: Management of nonnative species and native woody 
vegetation; maintenance of natural hydrology of habitat and adjacent 
areas, including rebuilding the stock pond to mimic natural flow 
regimes; construction of a cattle-exclusion fence to restrict grazing; 
and long-term maintenance of Tantabogue Creek flows by obtaining a 
conservation easement or agreement.

Unit 4: Hwy 204 ROW

    Unit 4 in Cherokee County contains 8.7 ac (3.5 ha) of occupied 
habitat along Hwy 204 ROW and within the Mud Creek basin. The unit was 
occupied at the time of listing and contains the physical and 
biological features essential to the conservation of the species. Unit 
4 extends about 0.3 mi (0.5 km) from east to west and about 0.01 mi 
(0.02 km) from Hwy 204 on both the north and south sides, each to the 
private fence. Unit 4 also includes a 0.1-mi (0.2-km) section of the 
Mud Creek basin where rose-mallow could expand or where seeds could be 
dispersed. This site was first observed in 1992 with a single plant. 
Since that time, a maximum number of seven plants has been counted. 
Since 2003, the rose-mallow has been observed underneath most 
overpasses (TXNDD 2012a, pp. 20-28). Essential biological features of 
Unit 4 include its location within the Mud Creek basin, open habitat 
with full sun, and association with alluvial, hydric soils.
    The features essential to the conservation of the species in Unit 4 
may require special management considerations or protection to address 
the threats of management of nonnative species and native woody 
vegetation, maintenance of natural hydrology of the wetland, and 
appropriate timing and frequency of mowing and maintenance along the 
ROW.

Unit 5: Davy Crockett NF, Compartment 55

    Unit 5 is the only unit that contains a natural population of the 
rose-mallow on Federal lands within the Davy Crockett NF. The unit was 
occupied at the time of listing and contains the physical and 
biological features essential to the conservation of the species. 
Occupied habitat of Unit 5 includes 3.8 ac (1.5 ha). An open flatwood 
or forested (Cowardin et al. 1979, p. 20) pond is surrounded by pine-
oak forest. Unit 5 is 0.09 mi (0.14 km) in diameter and includes a 
palustrine flatwood pond and the surrounding open habitat. Essential 
habitat features of Unit 5 include its location within the Neches River 
basin, potential proximity to standing water contained within the 
flatwood pond, surrounding native woody vegetation, and associated 
alluvial soils.
    The features essential to the conservation of the species in unit 6 
may require special management considerations or protection to address 
the threats of management of nonnative species and native woody 
vegetation, maintenance of natural hydrology of the wetland, and 
controlled use of herbicides.

Unit 6: Davy Crockett NF, Compartment 11

    Unit 6 includes 7.3 ac (3.0 ha) of occupied habitat on compartment 
11 on Federal land of the NF within Houston County. The unit was 
occupied at the time of listing and contains the physical and 
biological features essential to the conservation of the species. SFASU 
introduced 200 plants into a seasonally flooded and low-lying wetland. 
Unit 6 is 0.2 mi (0.3 km) in diameter, and essential habitat features 
include a partially open, depressional pond, surrounded by native 
vegetation.
    The features essential to the conservation of the species in Unit 6 
may require special management considerations or protection to address 
the threats of management of nonnative species and native woody 
vegetation, maintenance of natural hydrology of the wetland, and 
controlled use of herbicides.

Unit 7: Davy Crockett NF, Compartment 20

    Unit 7 includes 3.4 ac (1.4 ha) of Federal land on compartment 20 
of the Davy Crockett NF, Houston County. The unit was occupied at the 
time of listing and contains the physical and biological features 
essential to the conservation of the species. SFASU introduced 350-400 
plants in 2000, and the site was

[[Page 56005]]

occupied at the time of listing. Essential habitat features to the unit 
include the hydric alluvial soils, native woody vegetation, natural 
flows and hydrology of the draining pond, and an open canopy of the 
perennial wetland where the rose-mallow is located.
    The features essential to the conservation of the species in Unit 7 
may require special management considerations or protection to address 
the threats of management of nonnative species and native woody 
vegetation, maintenance of natural hydrology of the wetland, 
maintenance and repair of habitat from hog damage, and controlled use 
of herbicides.

Unit 8: Davy Crockett NF, Compartment 16

    Unit 8 encompasses 32.8 ac (13.3 ha) of occupied Federal habitat on 
NF lands. SFASU introduced 450 plants at this site in 2000, but only 43 
stem clusters were observed in 2011. The unit was occupied at the time 
of listing and contains the physical and biological features essential 
to the conservation of the species. Essential habitat and biological 
features include a partially open, depressional wetland within the 
Neches River floodplain, native riparian plant associates, and alluvial 
soils.
    The features essential to the conservation of the species in Unit 8 
may require special management considerations or protection to address 
the threats of management of nonnative species and native woody 
vegetation, maintenance of natural hydrology of the wetland, 
restriction of wetland conversion to beaver dams, and controlled use of 
herbicides.

Unit 9: Champion

    The Champion site, Trinity County, is located on private land 
approximately 0.7 mi (1.1 km) south-southeast of the Houston County 
line, about 0.8 mi (1.2 km) north of the confluence of White Rock Creek 
and Cedar Creek (TXNDD 2012a, p. 55). The unit was occupied at the time 
of listing and contains the physical and biological features essential 
to the conservation of the species. Two small polygons are being 
designated as occupied critical habitat, both encompassing 1.2 ha (2.9 
ac). Essential habitat features on the unit include palustrine wetlands 
with an open canopy.
    The features essential to the conservation of the species in Unit 9 
may require special management considerations or protection to address 
the threats of management of nonnative species and native woody 
vegetation, maintenance of natural hydrology of the entire site, and 
habitat conversion to planted pine and other hardwoods.

Unit 10: Mill Creek Gardens

    Unit 10 is an introduced site at Mill Creek Gardens, Nacogdoches 
County. SFASU Mass Arboretum purchased the land and created the gardens 
in 1995 as part of a conservation agreement. The unit was occupied at 
the time of listing and contains the physical and biological features 
essential to the conservation of the species. Plants grown from 
cuttings by SFASU were introduced within research plots in an area that 
overflows from an adjacent pond. Vegetation around the site is well 
adapted to full and partial water inundation (TXNDD 2012a, p. 50). The 
unit contains 95.3 ac (38. 6 ha) of occupied habitat.
    The features essential to the conservation of the species in Unit 
10 may require special management considerations or protection to 
address the threats of management of nonnative species and native woody 
vegetation, maintaining natural hydrology of the entire site, and 
maintaining the natural hydrology of the adjacent pond.

Unit 11: Camp Olympia

    Unit 11 is located on private property in Trinity County. The unit 
contains 0.2 ac (0.1 ha) of palustrine wetland habitat north of Lake 
Livingston. Warnock (1995, p. 6) suggested that the rose-mallow was 
highly dependent on the water levels of Lake Livingston; therefore, 
complete inundation of the site may cause extirpation of this 
population. The unit was occupied at the time of listing and contains 
the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of 
the species.
    The features essential to the conservation of the species in Unit 
11 may require special management considerations or protection to 
address the threats of management of nonnative species and native woody 
vegetation to maintain openness, and hydrological changes through 
potential site alteration or construction projects.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out 
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered 
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In 
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to 
confer with the Service on any agency action that is likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed 
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
proposed critical habitat.
    Decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals have 
invalidated our regulatory definition of ``destruction or adverse 
modification'' (50 CFR 402.02) (see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004) and Sierra 
Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 245 F.3d 434, 442 (5th 
Cir. 2001)), and we do not rely on this regulatory definition when 
analyzing whether an action is likely to destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat. Under the statutory provisions of the Act, we 
determine destruction or adverse modification on the basis of whether, 
with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the affected 
critical habitat would continue to serve its intended conservation role 
for the species.
    If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical 
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into 
consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the 
section 7 consultation process are actions on State, tribal, local, or 
private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act 
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service under section 10 
of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such as funding 
from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation 
Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal 
actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat, and actions 
on State, tribal, local, or private lands that are not federally funded 
or authorized, do not require section 7 consultation.
    As a result of section 7 consultation, we document compliance with 
the requirements of section 7(a)(2) through our issuance of:
    (1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but 
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat; 
or
    (2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, or 
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
    When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and 
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are

[[Page 56006]]

identifiable, that would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. We define 
``reasonable and prudent alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as 
alternative actions identified during consultation that:
    (1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended 
purpose of the action,
    (2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal 
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
    (3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
    (4) Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood of 
jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or avoid 
the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat.
    Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project 
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs 
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are 
similarly variable.
    Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate 
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have 
listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that 
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary 
involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary 
involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal 
agencies sometimes may need to request reinitiation of consultation 
with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if 
those actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect 
subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.

Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard

    The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is 
whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the 
affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended 
conservation role for the species. Activities that may destroy or 
adversely modify critical habitat are those that alter the physical or 
biological features to an extent that appreciably reduces the 
conservation value of critical habitat for Texas golden gladecress and 
Neches River rose-mallow. As discussed above, the role of critical 
habitat is to support life-history needs of the species and provide for 
the conservation of the species. Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us 
to briefly evaluate and describe, in any proposed or final regulation 
that designates critical habitat, activities involving a Federal action 
that may destroy or adversely modify such habitat, or that may be 
affected by such designation.
    Activities that may affect critical habitat, when carried out, 
funded, or authorized by a Federal agency, should result in 
consultation for the gladecress. These activities include, but are not 
limited to:
    Actions that would significantly reduce available habitat could 
include, but are not limited to construction of interstate pipelines 
and associated structures that are regulated by the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-issued Clean Water 
Act section 404 and River and Harbors Act section 10 permits for 
wetland crossings for linear projects (pipelines, transmission lines, 
and roads); road development (expansions and improvements) funded by 
the Federal Highway Administration; and U.S. Department of Agriculture 
funding and technical assistance for conversion of glades and 
surroundings to pine plantations or for brush control programs 
involving herbicide applications. These actions could directly 
eliminate a site or alter the hydrology, open sunny aspect, and 
substrate conditions, reducing suitability of a location to a point 
that it no longer provides the environment necessary to sustain the 
species. In the case of some types of herbicide applications, the 
habitat may become unsuitable for germination and successful growth of 
seedlings. Activities that may affect critical habitat, when carried 
out, funded, or authorized by a Federal agency, should result in 
section 7 consultation for the rose-mallow. These activities include, 
but are not limited to: actions that would significantly alter flow 
regimes, such as impoundment, channelization, water restriction, water 
withdrawal, and hydropower generation.
    In addition, activities that may affect critical habitat include 
actions that would significantly alter natural flora, such as 
disturbance activities like digging, disking, blading or construction 
work; introduction of nonnative species for erosion control along ROWs 
or in other areas; and a lack of management of nonnative or native 
woody species.

Exemptions

Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act

    The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a) 
required each military installation that includes land and water 
suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to 
complete an integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) by 
November 17, 2001. An INRMP integrates implementation of the military 
mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural resources 
found on the base. Each INRMP includes:
    (1) An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation, 
including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
    (2) A statement of goals and priorities;
    (3) A detailed description of management actions to be implemented 
to provide for these ecological needs; and
    (4) A monitoring and adaptive management plan.
    Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and 
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife 
habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement, 
and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and 
enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. 
L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as 
critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now provides: ``The Secretary shall not 
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographic areas owned 
or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its use, 
that are subject to an integrated natural resources management plan 
prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the 
Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to 
the species for which critical habitat is proposed for designation.''
    There are no Department of Defense lands within these proposed 
critical habitat designations.

Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act

Exclusions

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall 
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the 
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the 
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant 
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The 
Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if he determines 
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying 
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based 
on the best scientific data available, that the failure to

[[Page 56007]]

designate such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction 
of the species. In making that determination, the statute on its face, 
as well as the legislative history, are clear that the Secretary has 
broad discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight 
to give to any factor.
    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we may exclude an area from 
designated critical habitat based on economic impacts, impacts on 
national security, or any other relevant impacts. In considering 
whether to exclude a particular area from the designation, we identify 
the benefits of including the area in the designation, identify the 
benefits of excluding the area from the designation, and evaluate 
whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion. 
If the analysis indicates that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the 
benefits of inclusion, the Secretary may exercise his discretion to 
exclude the area only if such exclusion would not result in the 
extinction of the species.

Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts

    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impacts 
of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In order to 
consider economic impacts, we are preparing an analysis of the economic 
impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation and related 
factors.
    We will announce the availability of the draft economic analysis as 
soon as it is completed. At that time, copies of the draft economic 
analysis will be available for downloading from the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov, or by contacting the Corpus Christi Ecological 
Services Fish and Wildlife Office directly (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT, above). During the development of a final designation, we will 
consider economic impacts, public comments, and other new information, 
and areas may be excluded from the final critical habitat designation 
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 
CFR 424.19.

Exclusions Based on National Security Impacts

    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are 
lands owned or managed by the Department of Defense where a national 
security impact might exist.
    In preparing this proposal, we have determined that the lands 
within the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Texas 
golden gladecress and the Neches River rose-mallow are not owned or 
managed by the Department of Defense. Therefore, we anticipate no 
impact on national security. Consequently, the Secretary does not 
propose to exert his discretion to exclude any areas from the final 
designation based on impacts on national security.

Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts

    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant 
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national 
security. We consider a number of factors, including whether the 
landowners have developed any HCPs or other management plans for the 
area, or whether there are conservation partnerships that would be 
encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In 
addition, we look at any tribal issues, and consider the government-to-
government relationship of the United States with tribal entities. We 
also consider any social impacts that might occur because of the 
designation.

Other Exclusions

    We are not considering any exclusion at this time from the proposed 
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act based on partnerships, 
management, or protection afforded by cooperative management efforts. 
In preparing this proposal, we have determined that there are currently 
no HCPs or other management plans for the gladecress or the rose-
mallow, and the proposed designations do not include any tribal lands 
or trust resources.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the 
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert 
opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists 
regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure 
that our critical habitat designation is based on scientifically sound 
data, assumptions, and analyses. We have invited these peer reviewers 
to comment during this public comment period on our proposed listing 
determination and designation of critical habitat for these species.
    We will consider all comments and information received during this 
comment period on this proposed rule during our preparation of a final 
determination. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this 
proposal.

Public Hearings

    Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings 
on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45 
days after the date of publication of this proposed rule in the Federal 
Register. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule public hearings on this 
proposal, if any are requested, and announce the dates, times, and 
places of those hearings, as well as how to obtain reasonable 
accommodations, in the Federal Register and local newspapers at least 
15 days before the hearing.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review--Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
will review all significant rules. The Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not significant.
    Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866, while 
calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote 
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most 
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. 
The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches 
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for 
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and 
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further 
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that 
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open 
exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent 
with these requirements.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) as 
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996 (5 U.S.C 801 et seq.), whenever an agency must publish 
a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare 
and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis 
that describes the effects of the rule on small entities (small 
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). 
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of 
the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended 
the RFA to

[[Page 56008]]

require Federal agencies to provide a certification statement of the 
factual basis for certifying that the rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    At this time, we lack the available economic information necessary 
to provide an adequate factual basis for the required RFA finding. 
Therefore, we defer the RFA finding until completion of the draft 
economic analysis prepared under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and 
Executive Order 12866. This draft economic analysis will provide the 
required factual basis for the RFA finding. Upon completion of the 
draft economic analysis, we will announce availability of the draft 
economic analysis of the proposed designation in the Federal Register 
and reopen the public comment period for the proposed designation. We 
will include with this announcement, as appropriate, an initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis or a certification that the rule will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities accompanied by the factual basis for that determination.
    We have concluded that deferring the RFA finding until completion 
of the draft economic analysis is necessary to meet the purposes and 
requirements of the RFA. Deferring the RFA finding in this manner will 
ensure that we make a sufficiently informed determination based on 
adequate economic information and provide the necessary opportunity for 
public comment.

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires 
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking 
certain actions. We do not expect the designation of this proposed 
critical habitat to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, 
or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and 
no Statement of Energy Effects is required. However, we will further 
evaluate this issue as we conduct our economic analysis, and review and 
revise this assessment as warranted.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 
et seq.), we make the following findings:
    (1) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a 
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation 
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal 
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.'' 
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose 
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two 
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also 
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal 
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal 
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, 
local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the 
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance'' 
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's 
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or tribal 
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of 
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families 
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; 
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; 
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family 
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal 
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an 
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of 
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a 
voluntary Federal program.''
    The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally 
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties. 
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must 
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive 
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require 
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be 
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally 
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they 
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid 
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would 
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs 
listed above onto State governments.
    (2) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely 
affect small governments. The majority of lands being proposed for 
critical habitat designation are owned by private landowners, although 
the Federal Government and the State of Texas own small portions. None 
of these government entities fit the definition of ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' Therefore, a Small Government Agency Plan is not 
required. However, we will further evaluate this issue as we conduct 
our economic analysis, and review and revise this assessment as 
warranted.

Takings--Executive Order 12630

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (Government Actions and 
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), 
we will analyze the potential takings implications of designating 
critical habitat for Texas golden gladecress and Neches River rose-
mallow in a takings implications assessment. Critical habitat 
designation does not affect landowner actions that do not require 
Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude development of habitat 
conservation programs or issuance of incidental take permits to permit 
actions that do require Federal funding or permits to go forward.

Federalism--Executive Order 13132

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), this 
proposed rule does not have significant Federalism effects. A 
Federalism summary impact statement is not required. In keeping with 
Department of the Interior and Department of Commerce policy, we 
requested information from, and coordinated development of, this 
proposed critical habitat designation with appropriate State resource 
agencies in Texas. The designation may have some benefit to these 
governments because the areas that contain the physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of the species are more clearly 
defined, and the elements of the features of the habitat necessary to 
the conservation of the species are specifically identified. This 
information does not alter where and what federally sponsored 
activities may occur. However, it may assist local governments in long-
range planning (rather than having them wait for case-by-case section 7 
consultations to occur).
    Where State and local governments require approval or authorization 
from a Federal agency for actions that may

[[Page 56009]]

affect critical habitat, consultation under section 7(a)(2) would be 
required. While non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, 
assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require approval or 
authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly 
impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding 
duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat 
rests squarely on the Federal agency.

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), 
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not 
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of 
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We have proposed designating 
critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. This 
proposed rule uses standard property descriptions and identifies the 
elements of physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the Texas golden gladecress and Neches River rose-
mallow within the designated areas to assist the public in 
understanding the habitat needs of the species.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

    This rule does not contain any new collections of information that 
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule will not impose recordkeeping or 
reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, 
businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and 
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information 
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

    We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental 
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be 
prepared under the Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for 
this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 
49244).
    It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare 
environmental analyses pursuant to NEPA in connection with designating 
critical habitat under the Act. We published a notice outlining our 
reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 
1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 
(9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).]

Clarity of the Rule

    We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the 
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain 
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
    (1) Be logically organized;
    (2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
    (3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
    (4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
    (5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us 
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To 
better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as 
possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections 
or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences 
are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be 
useful, etc.

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the 
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with 
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, 
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), 
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with 
tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge 
that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal 
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make 
information available to tribes.
    We determined that there are no tribal lands that are occupied by 
the gladecress or the rose-mallow that contain the features essential 
for conservation of either species, and no tribal lands unoccupied by 
the gladecress or the rose-mallow that are essential for the 
conservation of the species. Therefore, we are not proposing to 
designate critical habitat for the gladecress or the rose-mallow on 
tribal lands.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available 
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-
2012-0064 and upon request from the Corpus Christi Ecological Services 
Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this package are the staff members of the 
Corpus Christi Ecological Services Field Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter 
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

    2. Amend Sec.  17.12(h) by adding entries for ``Hibiscus 
dasycalyx''and ``Leavenworthia texana'' to the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Plants in alphabetical order under ``Flowering Plants'', to 
read as follows:


Sec.  17.12  Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

[[Page 56010]]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Species
--------------------------------------------------------   Historic range              Family             Status   When listed    Critical     Special
         Scientific name                Common name                                                                               habitat       rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLOWERING PLANTS
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Hibiscus dasycalyx...............  Neches River rose-    U.S.A. (TX).......  Malvaceae................         T   ...........     17.96(a)           NA
                                    mallow.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Leavenworthia texana.............  Texas golden          U.S.A. (TX).......  Brassicaceae.............         E   ...........     17.96(a)           NA
                                    gladecress.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     3. Amend Sec.  17.96(a) by adding an entry for ``Leavenworthia 
texana (Texas golden gladecress)'' in alphabetical order under the 
family Brassicaceae and an entry for ``Hibiscus dasycalyx (Neches River 
rose-mallow)'' in alphabetical order under the family Malvaceae, to 
read as follows:


Sec.  17.96  Critical habitat--plants.

    (a) Flowering plants.
* * * * *
Family Brassicaceae: Leavenworthia texana (Texas golden gladecress)

    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for San Augustine and 
Sabine Counties, Texas, on the maps below.
    (2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements of the 
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of 
Leavenworthia texana consist of the three primary constituent elements 
identified for the species:
    (i) Exposed outcrops of the Weches Formation within Weches 
prairies. Within the outcrop sites, there must be bare, exposed bedrock 
on top-level surfaces or rocky ledges with small depressions where 
rainwater or seepage can collect. The prairie openings should support 
Weches Glade herbaceous plant communities.
    (ii) Thin layers of rocky, alkaline soils, underlain by glauconite 
clay (greenstone, ironstone, bluestone), that are found only on the 
Weches Formation. Appropriate soils are in the series classifications 
Nacogdoches clay loam, Trawick gravelly clay loam, or Bub clay loam, 
ranging in slope from 1-15 percent.
    (iii) The outcrop ledges should occur within the glade such that 
Texas golden gladecress plants remain unshaded for a significant 
portion of the day, and trees should be far enough away from the 
outcrop(s) that leaves do not accumulate within the gladecress habitat. 
The habitat should be relatively clear of nonnative and native invasive 
plants, especially woody species, or with only a minimal level of 
invasion.
    (3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as 
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, well pads, metering stations, 
other paved areas, or unpaved roads) and the land on which they are 
located, existing within the legal boundaries on [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER 
THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE].
    (4) Critical habitat map units. Soil Survey Geographic Dataset 
(SSURGO) was used as a base map layer. SSURGO is an updated digital 
version of the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) county 
soil surveys. SSURGO uses recent digital orthophotos and fieldwork to 
update the original printed surveys. Data layers defining map units 
were created using the Texas golden gladecress' restriction to the 
Weches Formation and its tight association with the three soil map 
units: Nacogdoches clay loam 1-5 percent slope, Trawick gravelly clay 
loam 5-15 percent slope, or Bub clay loam 2-5 percent slope. In San 
Augustine and Sabine Counties, these soil types are restricted to the 
Weches Formation. Locations of all known gladecress populations, as 
well as potential glade sites, were overlaid on the three aforenamed 
soil mapping units from the San Augustine and Sabine County's soils 
survey. Potential glade sites were identified using soil map units and 
a time series of aerial photographs that depicted changes in land 
cover. The maps in this entry, as modified by any accompanying 
regulatory text, establish the boundaries of the critical habitat 
designation. The coordinates or plot points or both on which each map 
is based are available to the public at the Service's internet site, at 
http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ElectronicLibrary/ElectronicLibrary_Main.cfm, http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2012-0064 
and at the field office responsible for this designation. You may 
obtain field office location information by contacting one of the 
Service regional offices, the addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 
2.2.
    (5) Index map follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 56011]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11SE12.000


[[Page 56012]]


    (6) Unit 1: Geneva Unit, Sabine County, Texas. Map of Unit 1 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11SE12.001


[[Page 56013]]


    (7) Unit 2: Chapel Hill, San Augustine County. Map of Unit 2 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11SE12.002

    (10) Unit 3: Southeast Caney Creek Glades, San Augustine County, 
Texas. Map of Units 3 and 4 follows:

[[Page 56014]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11SE12.003

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
    (11) Unit 4: Northwest Caney Creek Glades, San Augustine County, 
Texas. Map of Unit 4 is depicted in paragraph (10) of this entry.
* * * * *
    Family Malvaceae: Hibiscus dasycalyx (Neches River rose-mallow)
    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Cherokee, Harrison, 
Houston, Nacogdoches, and Trinity Counties, Texas, on the maps below.
    (2) Within these areas, the primary constituent element of the 
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of 
Hibiscus dasycalyx is intermittent or perennial wetlands within the 
Neches River floodplains or Mud and Tantabogue Creek basins that 
contain:
    (i) Hydric alluvial soils and flowing water when found in 
depressional sloughs, oxbows, terraces, side channels, or sand bars; 
and
    (ii) Native woody or associated herbaceous vegetation that has an 
open canopy providing partial to full sun exposure without nonnative 
species.
    (3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as 
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, ROWs, and other paved areas) and 
the land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries 
on [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE].

[[Page 56015]]

    (4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were 
created on a base of Strategic Mapping Program (StratMap) digital 
orthophoto quarter-quadrangles (DOQQs), with layers for boundaries and 
roads. The Service's National Wetlands Inventory maps for the 
appropriate USGS quads were also downloaded as layers. Critical habitat 
units were mapped using Geographic Coordinate System (GCS), North 
American, 1983. The maps in this entry, as modified by any accompanying 
regulatory text, establish the boundaries of the critical habitat 
designation. The coordinates or plot points or both on which each map 
is based are available to the public at the Service's internet site, at 
http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ElectronicLibrary/ElectronicLibrary_Main.cfm, http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2012-0064 
and at the field office responsible for this designation. You may 
obtain field office location information by contacting one of the 
Service regional offices, the addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 
2.2.
    (5) Index map follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11SE12.004


[[Page 56016]]


    (6) Unit 1: Highway 94 ROW, Trinity County, Texas. Map of Unit 1 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11SE12.005


[[Page 56017]]


    (7) Unit 2: Harrison site, Harrison County, Texas. Map of Unit 2 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11SE12.006


[[Page 56018]]


    (8) Unit 3: Lovelady, Houston County, Texas. Map of Unit 3 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11SE12.007
    

[[Page 56019]]


    (9) Unit 4: Highway 204 ROW, Cherokee County, Texas. Map of Unit 4 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11SE12.008


[[Page 56020]]


    (10) Unit 5: Davy Crockett National Forest, compartment 55, Houston 
County, Texas. Map of Unit 5 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11SE12.009


[[Page 56021]]


    (11) Unit 6: Davy Crockett NF, compartment 11, Houston County, 
Texas. Map of Unit 6 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11SE12.010


[[Page 56022]]


    (12) Unit 7: Davy Crockett NF, compartment 20, Houston County, 
Texas. Map of Unit 7 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11SE12.011


[[Page 56023]]


    (13) Unit 8: Davy Crockett NF, compartment 16, Houston County, 
Texas. Map of Unit 8 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11SE12.012


[[Page 56024]]


    (14) Unit 9: Champion site, Trinity County, Texas. Map of Unit 9 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11SE12.013


[[Page 56025]]


    (15) Unit 10: Mill Creek Gardens, Nacogdoches County, Texas. Map of 
Unit 10 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11SE12.014


[[Page 56026]]


    (16) Unit 11: Camp Olympia, Trinity County, Texas. Map of Unit 11 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11SE12.015

* * * * *

    Dated: August 28, 2012.
 Michael J. Bean,
Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 
Parks.
[FR Doc. 2012-22061 Filed 9-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C