Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Status for Texas Golden Gladecress and Threatened Status for Neches River Rose-Mallow, 56025-56069 [2013-22085]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 11, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56025-56069]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22085]



[[Page 56025]]

Vol. 78

Wednesday,

No. 176

September 11, 2013

Part V





Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





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

Federal Register / Vol. 78 , No. 176 / Wednesday, September 11, 2013 
/ Rules and Regulations

[[Page 56026]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

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


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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, determine 
Leavenworthia texana (Texas golden gladecress) meets the definition of 
an endangered species and Hibiscus dasycalyx (Neches River rose-mallow) 
meets the definition of a threatened species under the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). This final rule adds these 
species to the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants and implements 
the Federal protections provided by the Act for these species.

DATES: This rule is effective on October 11, 2013.

ADDRESSES: This final rule and other supplementary information are 
available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov (Docket No. 
FWS-R2-ES-2012-0064), https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ElectronicLibrary/ElectronicLibrary_Main.cfm, or https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ClearLakeTexas/. These documents, as well as all 
supporting information are also available for public inspection, by 
appointment, during normal business hours at, or by requesting 
electronic copies from: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Texas Coastal 
Ecological Services Field Office, 6300 Ocean Drive, Unit 5837, Corpus 
Christi, TX 78412-5837; by telephone at 361-994-9005; or by facsimile 
at 361-994-8262.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edith Erfling, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Texas Coastal Ecological Services Field 
Office (see ADDRESSES); by telephone 281-286-8282; or by facsimile 281-
488-5882. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf 
(TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-
8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. On September 11, 2012 (77 FR 55968), 
we published a proposed rule to list Leavenworthia texana (Texas golden 
gladecress) as an endangered species and Hibiscus dasycalyx (Neches 
River rose-mallow) as a threatened species. In this rule, we are 
finalizing our proposed determinations for these species under the Act. 
The Act requires that a final rule be published in order to add any 
plant species to the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants and to 
provide that species protections under the Act. We are publishing a 
final rule on the designation of critical habitat for the Texas golden 
gladecress and the Neches River rose-mallow under the Act elsewhere in 
today's Federal Register. The critical habitat designation final rule 
and its supporting documents will publish under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-
2013-0027, and can also be found at the locations listed in the 
ADDRESSES section of this rule.
    The basis for our action. Under the Act, a species may be 
determined to be endangered or threatened based on any of the following 
five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, 
or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) 
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its 
continued existence.
    We have determined that the Texas golden gladecress meets the 
definition of an endangered species due to the following threats:
     In some cases, a total loss of habitat and plants, and in 
others a degradation of the herbaceous glade plant communities 
supporting the Texas golden gladecress. Activities or factors that 
continue to negatively impact the habitat of the Texas golden 
gladecress include glauconite quarrying; natural gas and oil 
exploration, production, and distribution; invasion of open glades by 
nonnative and native shrubs, trees, and vines, and other weedy species; 
pine tree plantings in close proximity to occupied glades; herbicide 
applications that have potential to kill emerging seedlings; and the 
installation of service improvements, including water and sewer lines, 
domestic gas lines, or electric lines.
     The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to 
protect the Texas golden gladecress or its habitats.
     Other natural or manmade factors, including low numbers of 
individual plants and few remaining populations.
     The above threats are likely exacerbated by climate 
change.
    We have determined that the Neches River rose-mallow meets the 
definition of a threatened species due to the following threats:
     Habitat loss and degradation of open habitats on hydric 
alluvial soils along sloughs, oxbows, terraces, and wetlands of the 
Neches, Sabine, and Angelina River basins and Mud Creek and Tantabogue 
Creek basins that support the Neches River rose-mallow. The Neches 
River rose-mallow's habitat is being lost and degraded by encroachment 
of nonnative and native plant species, particularly trees; herbicide 
use; livestock and hog trampling; and alteration of the natural 
hydrology associated with seasonal flooding to conditions where habitat 
has been drained or has become permanently flooded. Prolonged or 
frequent droughts can exacerbate habitat degradation for both species.
     Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to protect 
the Neches River rose-mallow or its habitats.
     The above threats are likely exacerbated by climate 
change.
    Peer review and public comment. We sought comments from six 
independent specialists to ensure that our designation is based on 
scientifically sound data and analyses. We obtained opinions from four 
knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise to review our 
technical assumptions and analysis, and to determine whether or not we 
had used the best available information. The peer reviewers generally 
agreed with portions of our assessment, including the threats analysis, 
and most of our conclusions, although they pointed out areas where 
additional research would refine our understanding of the two species' 
habitat requirements and range. The peer reviewers pointed out 
additional information, clarifications, and suggestions for future 
research that would inform future surveys to refine the geographic 
range, and help with management and recovery efforts. Information we 
received from peer review is incorporated in this final revised 
designation. We also considered all comments and information we 
received from the public during the comment periods.

Previous Federal Actions

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

[[Page 56027]]

proposed rule. On May 1, 2013, we held a public hearing to accept oral 
and written comments on the proposals.
    We are publishing a final rule on the designation of critical 
habitat under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) for the Texas golden 
gladecress and the Neches River rose-mallow elsewhere in today's 
Federal Register.

Background

Species Information

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

Texas Golden Gladecress

Taxonomy and Description
    Texas golden gladecress is a small, annual, herbaceous plant 
belonging to the mustard family (Brassicaceae). Dr. M. C. Leavenworth, 
an Army physician, first collected the taxon in Choctaw County, 
Oklahoma, in 1835, and the specimens were later described as a new 
species, Leavenworthia aurea, by Torrey (Mahler 1981, pp. 76-77).
    From 1836 to 1837, Leavenworth collected similar specimens near the 
present-day town of San Augustine, San Augustine County, Texas, and 
these were also identified as L. aurea. E. J. Palmer (1915 and 1918), 
and D. S. and H. B. Correll (1961 to 1962) as cited by Mahler (1981, 
pp. 83) made later collections of the plant in the San Augustine area. 
George and Nixon (1990, pp. 117-127) studied and mapped populations in 
this area between 1979 and 1980. W. H. Mahler studied the collected 
specimens and their habitat, and described the Texas plants as a new 
species, Leavenworthia texana (Mahler 1987, pp. 239-242), based on 
differences in morphological characteristics of flowers and leaves, and 
in chromosome number, between the Oklahoma and Texas plants (Mahler 
1987, pp. 239-242).
    According to Mahler (1987, p. 240), Texas golden gladecress flower 
petals were a brighter, deeper yellow than those of L. aurea, and the 
petals were egg-shaped and flat instead of being broad and notched. The 
L. texana had wider-than-long terminal leaf segments that were usually 
distinctly lobed while L. aurea's terminal leaves were essentially 
unlobed, flat, and more circular. Texas plants had a chromosome number 
of 2n = 22 (Nixon 1987, pers. comm. in Mahler 1987, pp. 239, 241) while 
the Oklahoma L. aurea had 2n = 48 (Rollins 1963, pp. 9-11; Beck et al. 
2006, p. 156). We are aware that a recently completed monograph of the 
genus may have taxonomic implications for the Texas and Oklahoma 
Leavenworthia species in the future, but several questions, including 
the differences in chromosome number, remain unresolved and no 
supporting information that would change the current status of Texas 
golden gladecress has been published to date (Poole 2011a, pers. 
comm.).
    Texas golden gladecress is a weakly rooted, glabrous (smooth, 
glossy), winter annual (completes its life cycle in 1 year). Texas 
golden gladecress is small in stature, less than 3.9 inches (in) (10 
centimeters (cm)) in height, making it difficult to find except during 
flowering or when it bears fruit. The leaves are 0.8-3.1 in (2-8 cm) 
long and 0.4-0.6 in (1-1.5 millimeters (mm)) wide, forming rosettes at 
the base of the plant. Terminal leaf segments are wider-than-long, and 
usually distinctly lobed, with angular teeth. Flowers are bright yellow 
and borne on scapes (leafless flowering stems or stalks arising from 
the ground) that are 1.2-3.5 in (3-9 cm) long early in the flowering 
season. Later in the season, the flowers occur on unbranched flower 
clusters that come off a single central stem from which the individual 
flowers grow on small stalks, at intervals. The four petals are bright 
golden-yellow with a slightly darker base, narrowly obovate (tongue-
shaped), 0.3-0.4 in (7-10 mm) long and 0.1-0.2 (3.5-5 mm) wide. The 
fruit is a slender seed capsule, known as a silique, with a length 
(0.6-1.2 in (15-30 mm)) that is more than twice its width (0.08-0.22 in 
(2-5.5 mm)) and that contains 5 to 11 flattened, circular or 
spherically shaped seeds. The description above was drawn from Poole et 
al. (2007, p. 286), who adapted it from others.
Habitat
    Texas golden gladecress occurs within the Pineywoods natural region 
of easternmost Texas, within the Gulf Coastal Plain Physiographic 
Region. The region is defined by uplands that are forested by pine 
dominated woodlands, interspersed with bottomland, mesic slope, and 
bald cypress-tupelo swamp forests. Water oak and willow oak are 
prominent in the large stream floodplains, while some ancient sloughs 
are fringed by planer tree and overcup oaks (Dolezel 2012, pers. 
comm.). Many of the rare plants of the Pineywoods region, including the 
Texas golden gladecress and the federally endangered Lesquerella 
pallida (=Physaria pallida) (white bladderpod) are found in small-scale 
plant communities tied to ``geologic and hydrologic conditions that are 
themselves rather rare on the landscape'' (Poole et al. 2007, p. 6).
    Based on all documented occurrence records, the Texas golden 
gladecress is endemic to glade habitats in northern San Augustine and 
northwest Sabine Counties, Texas, where it is a habitat specialist, 
occurring only on outcrops of the Weches Geologic Formation (Mahler 
1987, p. 240; George and Nixon 1990, p. 120; Poole et al. 2007, pp. 
286-287). The gladecress grows only in glades on shallow, calcium-rich 
soils that are wet in winter and spring. These occur on ironstone 
(glauconite or green-stone) outcrops (Poole et al. 2007, p. 286).
    All species within the small genus Leavenworthia share an 
adaptation to glade habitats that have unique physical characteristics, 
the most important being a combination of shallow soil depth and high 
calcium content (dolomitic limestone or otherwise calcareous soils) 
where the soil layers have been deposited in such a manner that they 
maintain temporary high-moisture content at or very near the surface 
(Rollins 1963, pp. 4-6). Typically, only a few inches of soil overlie 
the bedrock, or, in spots, the soil may be almost lacking and the 
surface barren. Within the Weches Formation glades, gladecress habitat 
occurs on thin soils that overlie calcium-rich parent materials where 
the calcium is derived from a myriad of fossilized, calcium-dominated 
oyster shells and other marine life (Dolezel 2012, pers. comm., p. 1).
    The glade habitats that support all Leavenworthia species are 
extremely wet during the late winter and early spring and then dry to 
the point of being parched in summer (Rollins 1963, p. 5). These glades 
can vary in size from as small as a few meters to larger than 0.37 
square miles (mi\2\) (1 square kilometer (km\2\)) and are characterized 
as having an open, sunny aspect (lacking canopy) (Quarterman 1950, p. 
1; Rollins 1963, p. 5). The landscape position of the glades may also 
play a role in assuring the cyclic moisture regime required by glade 
vegetation communities.
    The Weches Geologic Formation consists of Eocene-age deposits that 
lie mostly in an east-west band of ancient marine sediments. These 
sediments were deposited in a line roughly parallel to the Gulf of 
Mexico, running from Sabine to Frio Counties, Texas. The Weches 
Formation also extends over 100 miles to the north of Nacogdoches 
County into Smith, Wood, Upshur, Marion, and Cass Counties, Texas, and 
even into Miller County, Arkansas

[[Page 56028]]

(Godwin 2012, pers. comm., p. 2). A layer of glauconite clay is either 
exposed at the surface or covered by a thin layer of calcareous 
(calcium-containing) sediment measuring as deep as 20 in (50 cm) 
(George and Nixon 1990, pp. 117-118). Glauconite is a characteristic 
mineral of marine depositional environments, presenting a greenish 
color when initially exposed to the atmosphere, and later turning red 
(Davis 1966, pp. 17-18; Nemec 1996, p. 7). The area of the Weches 
outcrops in San Augustine County is referred to as the ``redlands'' 
(Ritter 2011b, pers. comm.). The glauconite is very friable (crumbly) 
and has low resistance to weathering (Geocaching.com 2010, p. 5). The 
soils overlying the clay layer are typically rocky and shallow (George 
1987, p. 3) and at all Texas golden gladecress sites are classified 
within the Nacogdoches, Trawick, or Bub soils series (United States 
Department of Agriculture 2009, entire).
    Within the known range of the Texas golden gladecress, Weches 
outcrops occur in a band averaging 5 miles (mi) (8 kilometers (km)) in 
width that parallels Texas State Highway (SH) 21 through northern San 
Augustine and northwestern Sabine Counties (Sellards et al. 1932 in 
Diggs et al. 2006, p. 56). It has been deeply dissected by erosion that 
created islands of thin, loamy, alkaline soils (pH 7-8), within the 
normally deep, sandy, acidic soils (pH 4-5) of the Pineywoods region. 
The glauconite layer of the Weches Formation is fairly impermeable to 
water, producing saturated, thin upper soils in late fall through 
spring, that dry out and harden during summer months (George 1987, pp. 
2-4; Bezanson 2000 in Diggs et al. 2006, p. 56). Down-slope seepage 
across the Weches terraces may also be important to maintain the 
hydrology required by the gladecress (Singhurst 2003, pers. comm.). The 
cyclic moisture regime and the alkalinity of the soils produce 
conditions unique to the Weches outcrops. Certain plants, such as the 
Texas golden gladecress, have evolved to live within these specialized 
geologic formations (Mahler 1987, p. 240; George and Nixon 1990, pp. 
120-122).
Biology
    The Texas golden gladecress occurs in open, sunny, herbaceous-
dominated plant communities in Weches glades, in some areas that also 
support the white bladderpod (Bridges 1988, pp. II-7, II-35, and II-35 
supplement). Unlike the white bladderpod, which can grow throughout the 
glade, the gladecress is restricted to the outcrop rock faces within 
the glades where it occurs (Nemec 1996, p. 8).
    As is true of other Leavenworthia species (Rollins 1963, p. 6), 
Texas golden gladecress seeds germinate during fall rains and the 
plants overwinter as small, tap-rooted rosettes. Flowering begins in 
February and continues into March, and sometimes as late as April, 
depending on annual weather conditions. Rollins (1963, p. 6) noted that 
the blooming period of Leavenworthia varied according to the 
temperature, moisture, and severity of winter freezes. Fruit production 
is generally seen from March into April. The plants respond to drying 
of the soil by dropping seed and withering away, usually in April and 
May (Singhurst 2011b, pers. comm.). By summer months, gladecress plants 
are dead, replaced by other low-growing species such as Sedum 
pulchellum (stonecrop), Portulaca oleracea (common purslane), 
Phemeranthus parviflorus (sunbright), and Eleocharis occulata 
(limestone spikerush) (Singhurst 2012e, pers. comm.). Although seed 
dispersal has not been studied in Texas golden gladecress, observations 
indicate that seeds fall within 6-8 in (15-20 cm) of the parent plant 
(Singhurst 2011c, pers. comm.).
    Little is known about the Texas golden gladecress's seed bank as 
this aspect of life history has not been researched. The species did 
reappear at two sites where it was believed lost due to habitat 
degradation. A population location, the Geneva Site in Sabine County, 
was bulldozed in late March 1999, one week after flowering plants were 
counted; the site was subsequently described by the surveyor as ``lost 
or destroyed'' (Turner 1999, pers. comm.). However, plants were found 
again at this site in 2003, and continued to emerge in succeeding 
years. At a second site in San Augustine County (Chapel Hill Site) a 
thick growth of the invasive, nonnative shrub, Rosa bracteata 
(Macartney rose) was removed in 1995. Post-brush removal, the Texas 
golden gladecress reappeared after not having been seen for the 
previous 10 years (Nemec 1996, p. 1). The species' reappearance after 
these habitat alterations suggests a persistent seed bank, although 
there have been no formal studies to verify this hypothesis.
    Rare plants often have adaptations such as early blooming, extended 
flowering, or mixed-mating systems that allow them to persist in small 
populations (Brigham 2003, p. 61). The Texas golden gladecress is 
believed to be self-compatible and able to self-fertilize (Rollins 
1963, p. 19; Beck et al. 2006, p. 153). The species may have evolved 
for self-fertilization when conditions are not favorable for insect-
vectored pollination, lessening the species' dependence on pollinators 
for cross-pollination and survival and potentially making the species 
more resilient under conditions of small, geographically separated 
populations. Rollins (1963, pp. 41-47) speculated that species in the 
genus Leavenworthia evolved from a self-incompatible original ancestor 
to self-compatibility in some species to persist with a diminishing 
overlap in seasonality of adequate moisture in glade habitats versus 
availability of insect pollinators (e.g., as the southeastern part of 
the United States warmed, the required moisture levels for germination 
and flowering became more restricted to winter months when insect 
availability was lower). This could help to enhance the species' 
persistence, at least in the short term, in a fragmented landscape 
where habitat patches may be so distant from one another as to preclude 
pollinators' movements between them. Even so, the presence of other 
flowering plants at gladecress sites could help to attract and maintain 
a reservoir of potential pollinators, thereby increasing the chances 
for the gladecress to be cross-pollinated. This would benefit the 
species by potentially providing, or maintaining, a higher level of 
genetic diversity.
Distribution and Status
    Texas golden gladecress is known from eight locations (historic and 
extant), including one introduced population, all within a narrow zone 
that parallels SH 21 in San Augustine, Sabine, and Nacogdoches Counties 
(Texas Natural Diversity Database (TXNDD) 2012b). Table 1 (below) 
summarizes the location information for Texas golden gladecress 
populations (taken from the TXNDD 2012b). Based on known population 
locations, taken from the TXNDD element occurrence records from 1974-
1988, the Weches glades of San Augustine County appear to be the center 
of the species' distribution; to date all but one of the naturally 
occurring populations were found in this area, with the other naturally 
occurring population in Sabine County. One population was successfully 
introduced into Nacogdoches County. All locations (historic and extant) 
occur primarily on privately owned land, although the plants do extend 
onto the Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT) right-of-way (ROW) 
at two sites: Geneva Site and Caney Creek Glade Site 1.

[[Page 56029]]



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

    Four Texas golden gladecress populations (Caney Creek Glade 1, 
Chapel Hill, Geneva, and Simpson Farms) were present through 2009, the 
last year that the plants were surveyed and counted (Singhurst 2011a, 
pers. comm.). In October 2011, Service and Texas Parks and Wildlife 
Department (TPWD) biologists visited all four known locations and found 
that the plants and habitat at the introduced site in Nacogdoches 
County (Simpson Farms) had been removed by a recent pipeline 
installation. The habitat was still intact at the other three locations 
in October 2011 (Cobb 2011, pers. comm.), and the presence of the 
plants themselves was subsequently observed at the three accessible 
sites in February 2012 (Singhurst 2012f, p. 1).
    Three San Augustine County occurrences (Caney Creek Glade Sites 2, 
6, and 8) were believed extirpated, at least in large part, by 
construction of glauconite mines (open pits) beginning in the late 
1990s. These occurrences may have been part of a much larger glade 
complex, referred to as the Caney Creek Glade Complex, that included 
the Caney Creek Glade Sites 1, 2, 6, 7, and 8. These five occurrences 
were located within an area extending out to 1.5 mi (2.41 km) to the 
east of the town of San Augustine (TXNDD 2012b, unpaginated). In 1987, 
the Caney Creek Glade Site 6 was described as having Texas golden 
gladecress plants ``in the thousands'' (TXNDD 2012b, unpaginated). 
Access to these three privately owned sites is prohibited; therefore, 
we cannot ascertain whether any plants or their habitat are still 
present on the peripheries of the mined areas.
    For Caney Creek Glade Site 7, the last TXNDD (2012b, unpaginated) 
element of occurrence record was from 1988, a time when the presence of 
Texas golden gladecress was confirmed at the site. The site was visited 
by a forestry consultant in 1996, who described the glade as being 
intact at that time. This individual revisited the site in 2000, and 
found invasive woody plants encroaching into the glade (Walker 2012, p. 
4). There were no further site visits due to lack of access to this 
privately owned tract. Satellite images taken as recently as 2008 show 
this site has not been altered by construction or quarrying (mining), 
but the open glade appearance at this site has changed to one of dense 
growth of woody vegetation, so it is unknown whether the plants still 
occur at the site.
    Table 2 presents estimates for extant Texas golden gladecress 
populations between 1999 and 2009 (Service 2010a, p. 4). The total 
number of plants seen in 2009 was 1,108. The largest population, 
consisting of 721 plants, was at the introduced site in Nacogdoches 
County, a site that was lost in 2011, when a pipeline route was 
constructed through it. This represents a loss of 65 percent of the 
known plants. After 2009, approximately 400 plants in three populations 
were all that remained of this species. The number of Texas golden 
gladecress plants fluctuated widely from year to year, likely due to 
differences in precipitation levels between years. The Texas golden 
gladecress is dependent on fall and winter rain to saturate the 
sediment and produce the seeps and pooling it requires, and drought 
conditions were noted to have a significant negative effect on 
reproduction (Turner 2000, p. 1) as seen in the drought years of 1999-
2000 (Texas Water Resources Institute 2011, unpaginated) when the 
Chapel Hill site decreased from 91 to 67 plants and the Caney Creek 
Glade Site 1 decreased from 490 to 96 plants (Service 2010a, p. 5).

 Table 2--Population Estimates for Texas Golden Gladecress At Monitored
                                  Sites
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Caney
              Year                 Chapel     Creek    Geneva    Simpson
                                    Hill     Glade 1              Farms
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999............................        91       490       319       *NS
2000............................        67        96        NS        NS
2001............................        96       520        NS       270

[[Page 56030]]

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

    Singhurst (2011a, pers. comm.) referred to the difficulty of trying 
to determine population trends for the Texas golden gladecress due to 
the lack of comprehensive numbers for the species. He attributed this 
data gap to variation in surveyors and their techniques, the inability 
to see Texas golden gladecress plants under invasive brush, lack of 
access to multiple sites, and the fluctuation in plant numbers 
associated with moisture conditions. Nevertheless, despite these 
limitations, it is evident that there are few remaining populations and 
that the overall numbers of existing plants are fluctuating. For 
example, a decrease in plant numbers in 2009 (Singhurst 2009, p. 1) was 
likely due to drought; however, following significant rains in late 
fall 2011 and early winter 2012, Singhurst (2012f, pers. comm.) noted 
higher numbers of plants than the 2009 counts at Geneva, Chapel Hill, 
and Caney Creek Glade Site 1.
    Most of the known populations, historic and extant, were and are 
restricted to small areas (see Table 1). For example, in San Augustine 
County, the Chapel Hill site is less than 0.2 acres (ac) (0.1 hectare 
(ha)) in size and lies between a pasture fence and gravel road 
southwest of SH 21. The area of the plants at the Caney Creek Glade 
Site 1 is less than 100 feet squared (ft\2\) (9 meters squared (m\2\)) 
in size, on the side of Sunrise Road south of SH 21. In Sabine County, 
the plants at the Geneva site occupy approximately 100 ft\2\ (9 m\2\) 
adjacent to, and west of, SH 21, south of Geneva. The total area 
occupied by the plants at the remaining three sites covers less than 
1.2 ac (0.5 ha). Area sizes for Texas golden gladecress occurrences 
were taken from the TXNDD element of occurrence records.
    Although no new populations of Texas golden gladecress have been 
found since the late 1980s, there is potential for more Texas golden 
gladecress to exist across the Weches glades region. Known populations 
all occur close to roads, suggesting that most searches for the species 
were nearby to public road access. All known occurrences are on private 
property, as is all remaining habitat, and surveys cannot be conducted 
without landowner permission. Effective identification of suitable 
habitat is needed to survey for new populations. Even in areas of 
potential Weches glades, as identified using Geographic Systems 
Information (GIS) data, including aerial, geologic, and hydrologic data 
sources, the habitat may not contain Texas golden gladecress 
populations. Between 1999 and 2003, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) used 
these tools to identify 44 potential sites of Texas golden gladecress 
and white bladderpod occurrence in the San Augustine glades. The San 
Augustine glades were delineated by TNC as a subset of the Weches 
glades for purposes of developing an area conservation plan. The San 
Augustine glades are located in north-central and northeastern San 
Augustine County. TNC was granted access to 14 of the 44 sites, but 
found little Weches glade habitat, and no new Texas golden gladecress 
or white bladderpod sites (Turner 2003, in Service 2010a, p. 3).
Conservation
    The Texas golden gladecress was included as a nested element within 
the Coastal Plain Carbonate Glades conservation element of the San 
Augustine Glades Area Conservation Plan developed by TNC of Texas in 
2003 (TNC 2003, entire). This plan was envisioned to provide guidance 
for the conservation and restoration of a network of ecologically 
functional forests and glades along the Weches Geological Formation in 
San Augustine County. The plan was generated through TNC's structured 
conservation planning process, which relied on a science team with 
expertise in east Texas flora and habitats, including members from 
academia, botanical institutions, and Federal and State agencies. The 
conservation planning process concluded that at least 8 viable (self-
sustaining, ecologically functioning) populations of Texas golden 
gladecress, containing an average of 500 individual plants each, at 
least 1 out of every 5 years, was the target conservation goal for the 
species (TNC 2003, pp. 8, 12).

Neches River Rose-Mallow

Taxonomy and Description
    Hibiscus dasycalyx (Neches River rose-mallow) (Blake and Shiller) 
is a nonwoody perennial (plant that grows year after year) in the 
Malvaceae (mallow) family that grows 1.9-7.5 feet (ft) (0.6-2.3 meters 
(m)) tall (Correll and Johnston 1979, p. 1030). Leaves are alternate 
and simple, generally t-shaped and deeply three-lobed with petioles 
(leaf stalks) 1.1-1.9 in (3-5 cm) long (Correll and Johnston 1979, p. 
1030). The Neches River rose-mallow generally produces a single creamy 
white (rarely pink) flower at the base of the leaf stalks along the 
uppermost branches or stems (Blanchard 1976, pp. 27-28; Warnock 1995, 
p. 2; Poole et al. 2007, pp. 264-265). Because the plants are single to 
multi-stemmed and each branch or stem can have numerous leaves, the 
total number of flowers per plant can number in the hundreds (Poole 
2013b, pers. comm.). Flowering occurs between June and August (Poole et 
al. 2007, p. 265), sometimes into late October depending on water 
availability during springtime inundations (Warnock 1995, p. 20; Center 
for Plant Conservation 2011). Large and numerous stamens are 
monodelphous, forming a tube that is united with the base of the petals 
(Klips 1999, p. 270).
    The Neches River rose-mallow was first collected by Ivan Shiller on 
June 23, 1955, at the type locality at SH 94 (also referred to as Apple 
Springs), Trinity County, Texas, and it was later recognized it as a 
distinct species (Correll and Johnston 1979, pp. 1030-1031). Blake 
(1958, p. 277) determined that the Neches River rose-mallow was 
different from the closely related

[[Page 56031]]

Hibiscus laevis (halberdleaf rose-mallow) by examining specimens from 
the type locality. Gould (1975), Nixon (1985), Hatch et al. (1990), 
Johnston (1990), and Fryxell (all in Warnock 1995, pp. 1-2; Poole 2002, 
pers. comm.) all recognized the Neches River rose-mallow as a distinct 
species.
    Two similar-looking Hibiscus species, H. laevis (halberdleaf rose-
mallow) and H. moscheutos (crimsoneyed or wooly rose-mallow) are 
wetland species documented in areas where the Neches River rose-mallow 
occurs. All three of these species have a similar general appearance, 
but can be separated based on a comparison of external characteristics 
including leaf structure, and degree of pubescence (fine hairs) on the 
calyx, leaves, capsule (dry fruit), or seeds (Correll and Correll 1975, 
p. 1118; Blanchard 1976, p. 5; Warnock 1995, p. 4). Similar to H. 
moscheutos, the Neches River rose-mallow has a hairy calyx but with 
larger, spreading hairs rather than a covering of small, short hairs 
(Warnock 1995, pp. 2-3). Geographically, these three species can be 
found within similar habitats, but the halberdleaf and the crimsoneyed 
rose-mallows prefer areas near deeper water and are found along edges 
of major rivers and streams (Blanchard 1976, pp. 10-14; Poole 2011b, 
pers. comm.), compared with the Neches River rose-mallow, which is 
found in side channels and floodplains of major river drainages. Based 
on the best scientific and commercial data available on the species' 
morphology, biology, and habitat-specific needs, we conclude that the 
Neches River rose-mallow is a valid taxon.
Habitat
    The Neches River rose-mallow is endemic to the relatively open 
habitat (Kennedy and Poole 1990, p. 11) of the Pineywoods (or Timber 
belt) of east Texas (Gould 1975, p. 1; Correll and Johnston 1979, p. 
1030), within Cherokee, Houston, Harrison, and Trinity Counties, and 
has been introduced into Nacogdoches and Houston Counties. Shortleaf-
loblolly pine-hardwood forests, longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), and 
loblolly pine forest (Pinus taeda) dominate the Pineywoods vegetation 
region (Telfair 1983, p. 29; Diggs et al. 2006, p. 6). More 
specifically, Neches River rose-mallow is found within seasonally 
flooded river floodplains as described by Diggs et al. (2006), where 
the natural bottomlands occupy flat, broad portions of the floodplains 
of major rivers and are seasonally inundated. Loamy to clayey soils 
seasonally flood and host flood-tolerant species of Quercus sp. (oak), 
Liquidambar styraciflua (sweetgum), Ulmus americana (American elm), 
Nyssa biflora (swamp tupelo), and Acer rubrum (red maple) (Diggs et al. 
2006, p. 103). Bottomland and floodplain areas may be dominated by Q. 
lyrata (overcup oak). Stands of shortleaf, longleaf, and loblolly pine 
are not occupied by the Neches River rose-mallow. The common native 
woody and herbaceous plant associates are listed in Table 3 (Warnock 
1995, pp. 14-15; Poole et. al 2007, pp. 264-265).

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


[[Page 56032]]

    Sites where the Neches River rose-mallow has been found have been 
described as sloughs, oxbows, terraces, and sand bars. Sites are 
seasonally inundated or regularly flooded bottomlands (Diggs et al. 
2006, p. 103) that include low areas (Warnock 1995, p. 13) within the 
Neches, Sabine, and Angelina River basins and Mud and Tantabogue Creek 
basins. Soils are classified generically as hydric alluvials (water-
saturated soils) of the Inceptisol or Entisol orders (Diggs et al. 
2006, pp. 46, 79) and although generally water-saturated, can often be 
surficially dry. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Natural 
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) completed soils surveys for all 
counties with known occurrences of the Neches River rose-mallow, and 
the associated soils are frequently flooded clay loams. Sites are both 
perennial and intermittent wetlands with water levels between sites 
varying due to their proximity to water, amount of rainfall, and 
floodwaters. Intermittent wetlands are inundated during the winter 
months but become dry during the summer months (Warnock 1995, p. 11). 
Warnock (1995) noted that seed dispersal is likely by water, and Scott 
(1997, p. 5) also stated that seed dispersal appears to be entirely 
water dependent. While water-mediated seed dispersal of the Neches 
River rose-mallow is highly likely, it is not known that flowing water 
is required for downstream dispersal of rose-mallow seeds. Rivers of 
east Texas tend to overflow onto banks and floodplains (Diggs et al. 
2006, p. 78), especially during the rainy season, thereby dispersing 
seed. Research has not been done to identify methods of seed dispersal 
upstream; however, avian species may facilitate this process.
Biology
    The Neches River rose-mallow is a perennial that dies back to the 
ground every year and resprouts from the base; however, the plant still 
maintains aboveground stems. Longevity of the species is unknown, but 
it may be long-lived. Cross-pollination occurs (Blanchard 1976, p. 38) 
within the Neches River rose-mallow populations, and the species has 
high reproductive potential (fecundity). The number of flowers and 
fruits per plant were documented during the TPWD's annual monitoring of 
the Neches River rose-mallow along SH ROWs. The species produced an 
average of 50 fruits per plant, but seed viability and survivorship are 
not known (Poole 2012a, pers. comm.). An open canopy is typical within 
Neches River rose-mallow habitat (Warnock 1995, pp. 11, 13), but plants 
also grow in partial sun (as is the case at SH 204). Sunlight is needed 
for blooming, as the blooming period may only last 1 day (Snow and 
Spira 1993, p. 160).
    Potential pollinators of the Neches River rose-mallow may include, 
but are not limited to, the common bumblebee (Bombus pensylvanicus), 
Hibiscus bee (Ptilothrix bombiformis), moths, and the scentless plant 
bug Niesthrea louisianica (Klips 1995, p. 1471; Warnock 1995, p. 20; 
Warriner 2011, pers. comm.). Both Hibiscus laevis and H. moscheutos are 
pollinated by common bumblebees and the Hibiscus bee (Snow and Spira 
1993, p. 160; Klips 1999, p. 270). The solitary Hibiscus bee prefers 
gently sloping or flat areas with sandy or sandy-loam soils for nesting 
areas (Vaughan et al. 2007, pp. 25-26; Black et al. 2009, p. 12), and 
female bees will excavate nest cavities in elevated, hard packed dirt 
roadways or levees near stands of Hibiscus (in this case H. palustris) 
and standing water (Rust 1980, p. 427). Members of the genus Bombus 
(family Apidae) are social bees, predominantly found in temperate 
zones, nesting underground (Evans et al. 2008, p. 6) in sandy soils 
(Cane 1991, p. 407). Bumblebees nest in small cavities, often 
underground in abandoned rodent nests, in grass (Black et al. 2009, p. 
12), or in open, grassy habitat (Warriner 2012a, pers. comm.). Other 
aboveground-nesting bees that may potentially pollinate the Neches 
River rose-mallow may include carpenter, mason, and leaf cutter bees 
that nest in dead snags or twigs or standing dead wood (Warriner 2012a, 
pers. comm.). Maximum foraging distances of solitary and social bee 
species are 492 to 1,968 ft (150 to 600 m) (Gathmann and Tscharntke 
2002, p. 762) and 263 to 5,413 ft (80 to 1,650 m) (Walther-Hellwig and 
Frankl 2000, p. 244), respectively. The scentless plant bug is a member 
of the Rhopalidae family found specifically in association with various 
members of the Malvaceae family. This species is known to deposit eggs 
on both the vegetative and reproductive parts of mallow plants (Spencer 
1988, p. 421). Holes have been eaten in floral parts of Neches River 
rose-mallow plants, suggesting that the scentless plant bug may be a 
pollinator as well as a consumer of the Neches River rose-mallow.
    Natural fires occurred every 1 to 3 years in east Texas (Landers et 
al. 1990, p. 136; Landers 1991, p. 73) and controlled the overgrowth of 
longleaf and loblolly pine, as well as nonnative species. In more 
recent history, humans used fire to suppress overgrowth. Fire 
suppression allows for sweetgum, oaks, Carya sp. (hickories), Diospyros 
virginiana (common persimmon), and Magnolia grandiflora (southern 
magnolia) to invade the natural pine forests (Daubenmire 1990, p. 341; 
Gilliam and Platt 1999, p. 22), and reduce the open canopy needed by 
the Neches River rose-mallow. Lack of fire increases the opportunity 
for nonnative species, such as Triadica sebifera (Chinese tallow), to 
invade these sites.
Distribution and Status
    The natural geographic range of the Neches River rose-mallow is 
within Trinity, Houston, Harrison, and Cherokee Counties, Texas, on SH 
ROWs and on private and Federal lands. However, the species has been 
introduced outside of the known geographic range in Nacogdoches County 
on private land (Mill Creek). In addition, populations of Neches River 
rose-mallow have been introduced within their natural geographic range 
on Federal lands in Houston County. In total, there are 12 occurrences 
of Neches River rose-mallow (see Table 4). However, only 11 of these 
are within the known geographic range and, as of October 2011, are 
considered occupied by the Neches River rose-mallow. The Neches River 
rose-mallow plants within the SH 230 ROW have not been seen since 2002, 
and the site was considered extirpated. In 2011, Neches River rose-
mallow plants were not located at this site, but in 2012, a graduate 
student from Stephen F. Austin State University reported seeing the 
Neches River rose-mallow along SH 230 in the ROW somewhere near the 
former site (Melinchuk 2012, p. 3).

[[Page 56033]]



                  Table 4--Population Estimates for Known Neches River Rose-Mallow Occurrences
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    First and last       Plant estimates  (or
                Site                            County               observation           otherwise noted)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Compartment 55, Davy Crockett     Houston....................    2002-2003; 2011  750 in 2002; 500 in 2005;
 National Forest (NF).                                                                1,000 in 2006; in 2007 and
                                                                                      2008, no changes from
                                                                                      2006; 750 in 2010; 100-200
                                                                                      plants in October 2011;
                                                                                      407 stems in October 2011.
2. Compartment 16, Davy Crockett NF  Houston....................         2000; 2011  450 in 2000; 115 in 2002;
 (introduced).                                                                        78 stems in 2003; 40 in
                                                                                      2004; between 20 and 40 in
                                                                                      2005; 50 in 2006; in 2007
                                                                                      and 2008, no changes from
                                                                                      2006; 90 in 2010; 43 stem
                                                                                      clusters in 2011.
3. Compartment 11, Davy Crockett NF  Houston....................         2004; 2011  200 in 2004; 75 plants in
 (introduced).                                                                        2005; 10 in 2006; in 2007
                                                                                      and 2008, no changes from
                                                                                      2006; 7 in 2010; 10 stem
                                                                                      clusters in 2011.
4. Compartment 20, Davy Crockett NF  Houston....................         2000; 2011  200-250 in 2000 (also
 (introduced).                                                                        reported that 350 plants
                                                                                      introduced); several
                                                                                      hundred blossoms in 2001;
                                                                                      70 in summer and fall of
                                                                                      2002; 182 in 2002; 291
                                                                                      stems in 2003; 100 in
                                                                                      2005; 350 in 2006; in 2007
                                                                                      and 2008, no changes from
                                                                                      2006, but only 150 seed
                                                                                      pods in 2007; 120 in 2010;
                                                                                      101 stem clusters in 2011.
5. SH 94 ROW-Boggy Slough..........  Trinity....................         1955; 2011  100+ in 1968; 50 in 1986;
                                                                                      50 in 1987; 13 in 1988; 7-
                                                                                      9 in 1991; 2-3 in 1992;
                                                                                      maximum of 27 in 1993; 38
                                                                                      in 1994; 41 in 1995; 16 in
                                                                                      1996 (only a partial
                                                                                      survey); 15-20 on private
                                                                                      land in 1997; 13 in 1998;
                                                                                      49 in 1999; 17 along ROW
                                                                                      and 300 observed on
                                                                                      private land in 2000; 15
                                                                                      and 300+ on private land
                                                                                      in 2001; 20 along ROW and
                                                                                      fewer than 100 observed on
                                                                                      private land in 2002; 3 in
                                                                                      2003; 20 and 0 on private
                                                                                      land in 2005; none in
                                                                                      2007; 35 along powerline
                                                                                      in 2010; 128 stem clusters
                                                                                      along ROW in 2011.
6. SH 204 ROW-Mud Creek............  Cherokee...................         1992; 2011  1 in 1992 and 1993; 26
                                                                                      within 3 subpopulations in
                                                                                      fall 1993; 1 in 1994-1996;
                                                                                      1 observed then an
                                                                                      additional 75 in 1997
                                                                                      under bridge; 1 in 1998; 2
                                                                                      in 1999; 16 in 2000; 5 in
                                                                                      2001; none in 2002; 17 in
                                                                                      2003; none in 2004, 2005,
                                                                                      2008, 2009; 46 in 2010 in
                                                                                      4 subpopulations; 1 plant
                                                                                      in one subpopulation in
                                                                                      summer 2011; 20 stem
                                                                                      clusters in 6
                                                                                      subpopulations in 2011.
7. SH 230 ROW......................  Houston....................         1978; 2002  50 in 1991; 58 in 1993; 38
                                                                                      in 1994; 1 in 1995; 2 in
                                                                                      1996; 6 in 1997; 8-13 in
                                                                                      1998; 14 in 1999; 8 in
                                                                                      2000; 4 in 2001;12 in
                                                                                      Sept. 2002; none in Oct.
                                                                                      2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, or
                                                                                      2011. Considered
                                                                                      extripated.
8. Lovelady........................  Houston....................               2011  50-70 in 1991; 7 in 1992;
                                                                                      58 in 1993; several
                                                                                      hundred blossoms in 2001;
                                                                                      400 along ROW in 2002; 900
                                                                                      blossoms or seedpods in
                                                                                      2007; observed in 2008,
                                                                                      but no estimates; 20 in
                                                                                      2010; 539 stem clusters in
                                                                                      2011.
9. Mill Creek Gardens (introduced).  Nacogdoches................         1995; 2011  96 in 1995; hundreds in
                                                                                      October 2011.
10. Harrison Site..................  Harrison...................       Not observed  Herbarium specimen was
                                                                         after 1980   recently confirmed again
                                                                                      as H. dasycalyx, but site
                                                                                      has not been observed
                                                                                      since 1980.
11. Champion site..................  Trinity....................         1996; 2001  Hundreds in 1997; 300-400
                                                                                      in 2001.
12. Camp Olympia...................  Trinity....................         1977; 1978  No estimates. Searches
                                                                                      occurred in 1992 and 1993,
                                                                                      but no plants were
                                                                                      observed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Populations along SH ROWs include SH 94 in Trinity County, 
collected in 1955 (Blake 1958, p. 277); SH 204 in Cherokee County, 
first observed in 1992; and SH 230 in Houston County, first observed in 
1978. The TPWD performed annual SH ROW monitoring along SH 94 from 1993 
thru 2001 (Poole, 2001, p. 1); along SH 204 from 1993 thru 2003 (Poole 
2001, p. 1; TXNDD 2012a, pp. 20-28); and along SH 230 from 1993 thru 
2001 (Poole 2001, p. 1). These three ROW populations are separated from 
one another and are considered distinct. However, the Boggy Slough site 
consists of several scattered Neches River rose-mallow subpopulations 
that are located in close proximity to one another. Boggy Slough 
subpopulations and the SH 94 ROW population are separated by no more 
than 1.0 km (3,280 ft), and these two sites likely constitute a single, 
larger population, sharing pollinators and exchanging genetic material 
(NatureServe 2004, p. 6; Poole 2011c, p. 2). Therefore, in Table 4, 
they are combined and represented as a single location.
    Adjacent lands to the SH 230 ROW were purchased by the Texas Land 
Conservancy in 2004 (The Texas Land Conservancy 2011), an organization 
previously known as the Natural Areas Preservation Association (NAPA). 
The Neches River rose-mallow plants in this site, referred to as 
Lovelady, are part of a population that included the Neches River rose-
mallow plants in the SH 230 ROW. The Neches River rose-mallow plants 
within the SH 230 ROW have not been observed since 2002, and the site 
is considered extirpated (TXNDD 2012a, pp. 61-67). The Lovelady site 
was recently surveyed in 2011, and although 539 stem clusters were 
found, most were in notably poor condition, being much shorter in 
stature because of the drought and herbivory (Poole 2012b, pers. comm.; 
TXNDD 2012a, pp. 14-19). The estimates of Neches River rose-mallow 
displayed in Table 4 show wide variations in plant numbers. Some of 
this variation is due to incomplete counts at the sites; in other 
words, only a portion of the population was counted. Meaningful trends 
cannot be derived from these population estimates.
    Although annual monitoring of the ROW sites was discontinued in the 
early 2000s, TPWD visited all of the ROW sites in October 2011. In the 
past, along SH 204 ROW, several subpopulations existed along multiple 
portions of the ROW; however, several of these subpopulations were gone 
in 2011. The recent drought conditions have allowed surveyors to count 
Neches River rose-mallow plants in parts of sites that were not 
accessible in the past because the sites were too wet. The increase in

[[Page 56034]]

numbers of plants at some of the ROW sites may be partially attributed 
to this.
    The Davy Crockett NF, Houston County, Texas, contains four extant 
sites, three introduced and one natural, of the Neches River rose-
mallow. The one natural population is found in compartment 55 located 
west of the Neches River. This site is considered the most robust of 
all known extant populations (Poole 2011c, p. 3) and is almost entirely 
unaltered from its originally observed state as a seasonally wet 
flatwood pond, with vegetation being distinctly zoned (TXNDD 2012a, p. 
29). The three introduced populations are located in compartment 16, 
which was introduced with 450 plants (Davis 2000, pers. comm.; 
McCormick 2002, p. 1; Service 2000, p. 3); compartment 20 with 200-250 
plants (Davis 2000, pers. comm.; McCormick 2002, p. 2; Service 2000, p. 
3); and compartment 11 with about 200 plants (Nemec 2005, pers. comm.). 
The populations in compartments 16 and 20 were introduced in 2000, 
while the population in compartment 11 was introduced in 2004 (Service 
2007, p. 6). All four of the Davy Crockett NF sites were censused in 
October 2011, by the Service and TPWD, and all of the introduced sites 
on the Davy Crockett NF appear to have declined dramatically.
    The four remaining Neches River rose-mallow sites have had sporadic 
monitoring or have not been visited in recent years. In 1995, Stephen 
F. Austin State University Mast Arboretum planted 96 Neches River rose-
mallow plants into a site at Mill Creek Gardens, Nacogdoches County 
(Scott 1997, pp. 6-7). A conservation easement was placed on this land, 
and now the site is managed by the Mast Arboretum. Neches River rose-
mallow plants at this site were observed in 1997, 1998, 2001, 2009, and 
2011 (Creech 2011a, pers. comm.). The introduced plants appear to be 
doing well; however, nonnatives and native species are becoming more 
prevalent, and may compete with the Neches River rose-mallow (Creech 
2011c, pers. comm.). Another site in Harrison County, Texas, was last 
verified by a specimen collected in 1980. The identification of this 
specimen was identified as Neches River rose-mallow and later 
considered Hibiscus laevis (Melinchuk 2012, p. 2). Not until 2011, was 
it confirmed that the specimen collected was the Neches River rose-
mallow (Birnbaum 2011, pers. comm.; TXNDD 2012a, pp. 12-13). Although, 
the Harrison County site has not been visited since 1980, and drought 
and severe storms might have impacted this site but without a lack of 
evidence suggesting the species' extirpation from either threat, we 
presume that Neches River rose-mallow is extant at this site. Two 
additional populations occur on private lands in Trinity County: the 
Camp Olympia and Champion sites, discovered in 1977 and 1996, 
respectively. The current status of Neches River rose-mallow on the 
Camp Olympia site is unknown. We consider this site to be extant 
because we have no evidence that it has been extirpated. The population 
on the Champion site was observed in 2001; plants were seen, but no 
plant counts were done.
Conservation
    We relied on Pavlik's Minimum Viable Population analysis tool 
(1996, pp. 127-155) and species' experts to determine the conservation 
goals of the species. Based on the best known and available scientific 
information on the species' life-history and reproductive 
characteristics, we concluded that the conservation goals for the 
Neches River rose-mallow include 10 viable populations, each containing 
at least 1,400 individual plants. The species is limited to the Neches, 
Sabine, and Angelina River basins and the Mud and Tantabogue Creek 
basins with 11 extant sites throughout this range. However, many of 
these sites were introduced and are now compromised by threats from 
feral hog damage, hydrological changes, nonnative and native species 
encroachment into habitat, construction projects, and herbicide 
overspray. Future management actions that ameliorate these threats 
could allow for the species to expand within its known range. The 
extant populations are generally small. The only site that has come 
close to reaching the conservation goals is on compartment 55 of the 
U.S. Forest Service (USFS); however, it still only comprises 53 percent 
of the needed plants at this site (750 plants were seen in 2010).

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    We requested written comments from the public on the proposed 
listing for the Texas golden gladecress and Neches River rose-mallow 
during two comment periods. The first comment period, associated with 
the publication of the proposed rule (77 FR 55968), opened on September 
11, 2012, and closed on November 13, 2012. Newspaper notices inviting 
general public comment were published in the Houston County Courier, 
Nacogdoches Daily Sentinel, and Marshall News Messenger. We also 
requested comments on the proposed listing during a comment period that 
opened April 16, 2013, and closed on May 16, 2013 (78 FR 22506). We 
received requests for a public hearing, which was held on May 1, 2013, 
in Nacogdoches, Texas. Newspaper notices inviting public comment for 
this second comment period were published in the San Augustine Tribune 
and Cherokeean Herald in addition to the three papers listed above. We 
also contacted appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies; 
scientific experts and organizations; and other interested parties and 
invited them to comment on the proposed rule during these comment 
periods.
    We received approximately 63 public comments. All substantive 
information provided during both comment periods has either been 
incorporated directly into this final determination or is addressed 
below. Comments addressed below are grouped into general issues 
specifically relating to the listing of Texas golden gladecress and 
Neches River rose-mallow.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 
(59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinions from six knowledgeable 
individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with 
the biology and ecology of the Texas golden gladecress and Neches River 
rose-mallow; the geographic region in which these species occur and 
characteristics of their habitats, including the unique geology; and 
land uses common to the region that may bear on the threats to both 
species. We received responses from four of the peer reviewers.
    We reviewed all comments we received from the peer reviewers for 
substantive issues and new information regarding listing of the Texas 
golden gladecress and Neches River rose-mallow. The peer reviewers 
generally agreed with portions of our assessment, including the threats 
analysis, and most of our conclusions, although they pointed out areas 
where additional research would refine our understanding of the two 
species' habitat requirements and range. The peer reviewers provided 
additional information, clarifications, and suggestions for future 
research that would inform future surveys to refine the geographic 
range and that would help with management and recovery efforts. Peer 
reviewer comments are addressed in the following summary and 
incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.

Peer Reviewer Comments

    (1) Comment: One peer reviewer asked for clarification regarding 
the

[[Page 56035]]

numbers of Texas golden gladecress populations in State highway ROWs. 
One location in the proposed rule referred three extant sites within 
State highway ROW; however, another location refers to only two extant 
populations within State ROWs.
    Our Response: We recognize that the language in the proposed rule 
may be misleading or easily misconstrued because it implies that the 
three confirmed Texas golden gladecress populations are all located in 
ROWs. We have changed the language in the referenced paragraph to 
reflect the fact that only two of the extant populations, Geneva and 
Caney Creek Glade Site 1, occur in ROWs, which are both managed by 
TXDOT. The third extant population at Chapel Hill is located on a small 
tract adjacent to a county road and is not considered to extend into 
any type of road ROW.
    (2) Comment: One peer reviewer stated his opinion that that there 
is no conservation land, fee simple or under easement, for either of 
these species. He alluded to the land on which these species' habitats 
occur being some of the cheapest in east Texas and suggested that it 
would be more cost effective to purchase fee title or conservation 
easements of small tracts to conserve these species because creation of 
a series of small protected sites would work well for an endemic 
species. He indicated that the habitat areas in question have very 
little commercial value, with the Weches glades having no value for 
forestry or agriculture. He acknowledged that the value of the Weches 
Formation for glauconite mining exceeds values for other uses and 
indicated his opinion that it would be appropriate to estimate the 
commercial value of the glauconite mined on a site and match this 
value.
    Our Response: We are in agreement with the first part of this 
comment about the lack of conservation lands for the Texas golden 
gladecress; however, this is not true for the Neches River rose-mallow. 
The Texas Land Conservancy has fee title ownership of the land on which 
the Neches River rose-mallow's Lovelady population in Houston County is 
located. The Texas Land Conservancy bought this land specifically to 
conserve the Neches River rose-mallow and manages the site accordingly. 
The United States Forest Service (USFS) also has Neches River rose-
mallow in several compartments, is aware of the species, and manages 
those compartments to avoid impacts.
    Further, the Act requires us to determine if the Texas golden 
gladecress and Neches River rose-mallow warrant listing solely on the 
basis of the best scientific and commercial data available as evaluated 
through our assessment of the five listing factors set forth in the 
Act. We previously determined that the Texas golden gladecress and 
Neches River rose-mallow warranted listing under the Act, making them 
candidate species. However, the listing of these species was precluded 
by the necessity to commit limited funds and staff to complete higher 
priority listing actions for other species. The Texas golden gladecress 
and Neches River rose-mallow have been included in our annual candidate 
notices of review for multiple years. In our annual review of these 
species, scientific literature and data have, and continue to, indicate 
that these species are impacted by ongoing threats. Any future 
conservation actions, such as purchasing land from willing landowners, 
or land management efforts to ameliorate threats, will be evaluated as 
part of the recovery planning process.
    (3) Comment: Two peer reviewers discussed the geography of the 
Weches Formation and wondered how it may influence the range of the 
Texas golden gladecress. One reviewer indicated that it is a common 
misconception that the Weches Formation centers on Nacogdoches and San 
Augustine Counties. He pointed out that the Weches Formation also 
extends over 100 miles (161 km) to the north into Smith, Wood, Upshur, 
Marion, and Cass Counties in Texas, and even across into Miller County, 
Arkansas. A second reviewer described the Weches formation as 
consisting of Eocene age deposits lying mostly in an east-west band. 
This reviewer further pointed out a northeast to southwest trend in 
Cherokee County, Texas, proceeding northeastward toward Tyler, Texas. 
Referencing the U.S. Department of Agriculture's soils surveys of 
Cherokee, Nacogdoches, Houston, San Augustine, and Sabine Counties, the 
reviewer indicated that most acreage of Weches Outcrop may occur in 
Cherokee County. The former reviewer indicated that he was not aware of 
any systematic surveys of these widely dispersed outcrops for the 
presence of the endemic glade plants. He recommended that some 
attention and resources be directed at exploring the other Weches 
outcrops that stretch north to Cass County and suggested that any 
ruling by the Service or subsequent recovery plan for Texas golden 
gladecress include provisions for surveying these areas.
    Our Response: The Service recognizes the extent of the Weches 
Formation reaches the above referenced counties. However, the Service 
has not found or received any data indicating that the species is 
present in these other counties. The Service is required to use the 
best scientific and commercial data available at the time of listing. 
We relied on all available information regarding the known occurrences 
of the Texas golden gladecress at the time of listing; none of the 
known occurrences was reported from outside Sabine and San Augustine 
Counties (with the exception of the introduced population in 
Nacogdoches County). Further analysis of geological correlations with 
the Texas golden gladecress is an issue to be addressed in recovery 
planning. Furthermore, as a federally listed endangered species, the 
Texas golden gladecress will be afforded the protections of the Act 
wherever found.
    (4) Comment: One peer reviewer pointed out that our assessment of 
the Weches Formation did not take into account the work of geologists. 
He suggested referencing the body of work on the chemistry and 
mineralogy of the Weches by Ernest Ledger and students that document a 
wide variation in the attributes of the Weches across its range from 
San Augustine and Nacogdoches Counties, north over 100 miles (161 km) 
to Cass County. In his opinion, we need to know about the variability 
of the Weches Formation in terms of available calcium and long-term pH 
change to identify more potential sites for the Texas golden 
gladecress. This reviewer indicated that Ledger's chemical analyses of 
Weches constituent minerals shows hard data on the low-level presence 
of nutrients in some locations. Some of these may be suitable for 
mining as soil additives in the future when current sources like 
phosphate rock deposits are mined-out. Analyses of the chemical 
composition of the rock should be considered when selecting potential 
conservation sites. He suggested that a critical look at Ledger's work 
might show that unusual features of the Weches Formation that promote 
the occurrence of Texas golden gladecress and associated glade plants 
are limited to the southern end of the Weches Formation. Similarly, 
this peer reviewer referred to the known variations in the Weches 
Formation and suggests that we need a better understanding of the 
geology and soils conditions underlying Texas golden gladecress in 
order to plan for future surveys for the species.
    Our Response: We recognize that variability of Weches outcrops does 
exist across the Weches Formation throughout the numerous counties 
listed above. We agree that a better characterization of the geology 
and soils underlying known Texas golden gladecress populations could 
provide useful information. However, there are

[[Page 56036]]

likely other factors that characterize individual outcrop sites that 
may also be important (for additional information, see ``Invasive 
Species'' under A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, 
or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range of this rule). Further, the 
Service must use the best available scientific and commercial data 
available at the time of listing. Determining the chemical components 
of the geological formations beneath known glade sites is not a 
feasible accomplishment within the timeframe we have to publish our 
final determination. This research would be addressed in recovery 
planning. For purposes of the proposed rule and this final rule to list 
the Texas golden gladecress, we used the more general Weches Formation 
outcrops descriptions, and we more specifically relied on the geologic 
and soils information available from one known Texas golden gladecress 
population site, as well as from one white bladderpod site. Please see 
the ``Habitat'' section for the Texas golden gladecress in this final 
rule for more information.
    The commenter did not provide specific references for Ledger's 
research. However, we attempted to locate research conducted by Ledger 
on this topic. We were able to locate some of Ledger's research, and we 
incorporated this into this final rule under the ``Habitat'' section 
for the Texas golden gladecress. However, this information did not 
modify our conclusions of our analysis of threats or determination that 
the species meets the definition of an endangered species under the 
Act.
    (5) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that the essential habitat 
component of Weches outcrops underlying Texas golden gladecress 
populations is the combination of thin soil over a calcium-rich parent 
material. In the Weches Formation, the calcium is derived from a myriad 
of fossilized, calcium-dominated oyster shells and other marine life.
    Our Response: The peer reviewer's verbiage was added to the Texas 
golden gladecress's ``Habitat'' description in this final rule to 
further illustrate the derivation of calcium from marine organisms that 
is true of the east Texas Weches Formation and which may be different 
from habitat of other Leavenworthia species.
    (6) Comment: One peer reviewer indicated that the developed soils 
that occur near the Weches outcrops are included in the Bub, Trawick, 
Nacogdoches, or Chireno soil series. He described the Chireno soil 
series as unique because it is the only ``blackland soil'' in east 
Texas. Chireno soils are classified as ``mollisols'' or blackland soils 
and are developed under prolonged grassland habitat. This reviewer used 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's soil surveys for Sabine, San 
Augustine, Nacogdoches, and Houston Counties to estimate roughly 3,000 
acres (1,214 ha) of this soil type occurring in a four-county area. He 
indicated that these soils may underlie prairies (glades) and that 
Native Americans regularly burned these areas either for protection 
from wildfires or enemies, or to entice game animals.
    Our Response: Although the reviewer does not specifically suggest 
that we add Chireno soils to the other soils known to support Texas 
golden gladecress habitat, this is how we have interpreted his comment. 
Based on the development of these blackland soils being dependent on 
long-term prairie cover, and the fact that other literature describes 
the Pineywoods glades as being within prairies, or as part of a 
combination of prairies and glades, information may indicate the 
potential for Weches outcrops within this soil series to support the 
herbaceous glades of which Texas golden gladecress may be a component. 
Mollisols, of which the Chireno series is one, are soils of grassland 
ecosystems, characterized by a thick, dark surface horizon that was 
developed under prolonged grassland habitat (Grunwald 2013, pp. 1-2). 
We based the soil parameters for Texas golden gladecress habitat on the 
soil descriptions in the TXNDD's element of occurrence records, the 
thesis by Robert George (George 1987, entire), and the U.S. Department 
of Agriculture's soil survey layers underlying all known Texas golden 
gladecress populations. The known Texas golden gladecress occurrences 
are all found on shallow, gravelly soils or almost bare bedrock 
overlying Trawick, Bub, or Nacogdoches soils, situations that would not 
support dense stands of prairie grasses, at least in the portion of the 
outcrop where the Texas golden gladecress is growing. Further 
investigation of the Chireno series for the presence of Texas golden 
gladecress would be addressed during the recovery process.
    (7) Comment: One peer reviewer provided us with confirmation that 
the glade habitat at the Texas golden gladecress population site 
referred to as Caney Creek Glade 7 was still intact as of spring 1996, 
when this reviewer visited the site. However, on a second visit in 
2000, encroachment by weedy and woody species was prevalent at this 
site.
    Our Response: This comment affirms our 2012 evaluation of this 
site, as derived from analysis of satellite imagery. As indicated in 
our proposed rule and this final rule, the population being referenced 
may still be present as of 2012, but from satellite imagery the site 
appeared to be overgrown with woody vegetation. Based on the habitat at 
Caney Creek Glade Site 7 remaining intact (not excavated or built 
over), with the exception of woody overgrowth, we assume that Texas 
golden gladecress plants still occupy this site.
    (8) Comment: One peer reviewer relayed personal observations that 
accumulation of pine leaf litter and eventual degradation of the 
material supports the germination of pine seed. This reviewer indicated 
that this likely happens because the leaf litter debris provides a 
small but steady increase of soil depth on the rocky, thin soil common 
in the Weches glades.
    Our Response: This comment supports the data in our proposed rule 
and this final rule to list the Texas golden gladecress, which state 
that planting of pine trees in close proximity to small glades may 
produce leaf litter that can accumulate within a glade, sometimes 
covering its surface and smothering smaller glade plants. As noted by 
the reviewer, the accumulation of pine leaf litter and the byproducts 
of its decomposition would create and enhance layers of organic 
material and create conditions favorable to natural pine seedling 
establishment. This would alter the nature of the glades by eventually 
deepening soils within the glade, thereby allowing other plants, 
including woody plants that previously did not occur in the short, 
herbaceous plant community, to take over these areas that formerly had 
too shallow and poor soil to support shrubs and trees. This situation 
would also enhance invasion by other plants, including Macartney rose, 
that would benefit from additional soil. Not only would the glade 
vegetation undergo succession to shrubs and trees, but the glades would 
also be altered by the shading and would hold moisture in the soil. All 
of these conditions would impede the continued existence of the Texas 
golden gladecress by altering the competitive advantage that this plant 
has in the glade environment.
    (9) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested evaluating a specific, 
potential Texas golden gladecress site based on the presence of the 
Texas golden gladecress's known associated species. The site is located 
on the SH 21 ROW, near the Sabine, Davy Crockett NF compartment 76, 
adjacent to a glauconite quarry.
    Our Response: From information provided to us early in the proposed 
rule's preparation stage, we were aware

[[Page 56037]]

that flora and fauna surveys were done on USFS lands in Sabine County 
in association with the debris cleanup effort post-Hurricanes Rita and 
Ike. These surveys, in conjunction with results of botanical surveys 
conducted before this time, failed to document the Texas golden 
gladecress on any of these USFS lands, although we do not know if lands 
outside of the USFS were included in any of the surveys. However, 
strategies for continued evaluation of potential but unconfirmed new 
sites will be addressed during the recovery planning process.
    (10) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that mention be made of 
the possibility for illuminating the evolutionary history of these 
species by genetic studies and that this would be useful in determining 
management strategies.
    Our Response: This is an issue that may be addressed during 
recovery planning.
    (11) Comment: A peer reviewer provided additional literature to 
consider in our analysis on the hybridization of the Neches River rose-
mallow. One was by Klips (1995) and the other by Mendoza (2004). These 
studies provide genetic insight of the relatedness between Neches River 
rose-mallow and two co-occurring species, Hibiscus moscheutos and H. 
laevis. Both researchers agree with the Service's opinion that the 
Neches River rose-mallow is a distinct species. These studies review 
the relatedness between the Neches River rose-mallow and other species; 
however, they do not investigate hybridization. Another peer reviewer 
noted the potential hybridization of the Neches River rose-mallow on 
compartment 20 in the Davy Crockett NF, in October 2012. Plants 
appeared to be H. dasycalyx, but the calyx was lacking the hairy 
surface typical of the species. The reviewer thought that the species 
was a potential cross with H. laevis.
    Our Response: The Service has reviewed this new information and 
incorporated it into the threats section under ``Hybridization'' in 
this final rule. These studies pertain to the relatedness between the 
Neches River rose-mallow and other species. They do not investigate 
hybridization of these species. Although the genus Hibiscus readily 
hybridizes within the nursery trade, hybridization between Neches River 
rose-mallow and another Hibiscus under natural conditions has not been 
verified. Drought conditions can alter the plants morphological or 
physical characteristics including leaf size, structure, and overall 
plant height (Fair 2009, p. 1). Further investigation into the 
occurrence of hybridization and its impacts on the population are 
necessary. The University of Texas-Tyler is researching the 
hybridization issue for Neches River rose-mallow and its impacts on the 
population; however, the project is only in its infancy, and no results 
have been determined. We do not consider hybridization a threat to the 
Neches River rose-mallow at this time.
    (12) Comment: One peer reviewer reported that in October 2012, she 
and a USFS botanist observed sedimentation along ROW work on both sides 
of SH 94. They anticipated that resurfacing and re-crowning work of the 
highway will likely increase runoff to this site. The reviewer noted 
that, during road improvement, TXDOT installs temporary culverts to 
assure water flow and exchange during construction. Another reviewer 
questioned whether county and municipal governments, who buy glauconite 
for road projects, are required to demonstrate that endangered species 
like white bladderpod are not being negatively impacted by their road-
building activities. He further asked whether the counties are 
receiving State or Federal funds to assist with road building.
    Our Response: The Service is aware of the bridge replacement along 
SH 94, but as of 2011, the construction and associated impacts of this 
project had not progressed into Neches River rose-mallow habitats 
(Adams 2011c, pers. comm.). Since the start of the SH 94 road expansion 
project, TXDOT has employed the use of temporary culverts and orange 
construction fencing around Neches River rose-mallow sites and has 
restricted workers from these fenced-off areas. Fenced-off areas 
encompassed far more area than that habitat known to be occupied by the 
Neches River rose-mallow (Adams 2013b, pers. comm.). In wetlands where 
sedimentation might continue despite the use of the above management 
activities, silt curtains (or silt fence) placed in conjunction with 
orange construction fencing have been installed (Adams 2013b, pers. 
comm.). Currently, all avoidance measures are voluntary.
    However, on the effective date of this final rule (see DATES), the 
Neches River rose-mallow will become a federally threatened species 
under the Act. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to 
ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out (that is, 
projects with a Federal nexus) are not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of the species or destroy or adversely modify its 
critical habitat, if any is designated. If a Federal action may affect 
a listed species or its designated critical habitat, the responsible 
Federal agency must enter into consultation with the Service (see 
Available Conservation Measures in this final rule for more discussion 
of this process). If this project, or any other project, has a Federal 
nexus and the project may affect a federally listed species then the 
Federal action agency will need to consult with the Service. We are 
publishing a final rule on the designation of critical habitat the 
Texas golden gladecress and the Neches River rose-mallow under the Act 
elsewhere in today's Federal Register.
    (13) Comment: One peer reviewer made several comments on invasive 
species and provided the Service with new information on the biology of 
Chinese tallow. The reviewer's recent observations in 2012, along with 
a USFS botanist, found Chinese tallow and Melia azedarach (Chinaberry) 
within compartment 16, Davy Crockett NF. Chinese tallow has invaded all 
known Neches River rose-mallow sites, yet is more prominent in SH 94 
and compartment 16, Davy Crockett NF sites. The reviewer provided a 
literature citation, Gan et al. 2009. Additionally, the reviewer 
mentioned that coastal bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) is one of the 
most serious, nonnative, invasive species threats to the Neches River 
rose-mallow.
    Our Response: As described in the proposed rule, we agree with the 
peer reviewer that nonnative species are a threat to the Neches River 
rose-mallow. We incorporated the additional information and biological 
data on tallow provided in Gan et al. 2009 into the Summary of Factors 
Affecting the Species section of this final rule. This additional 
information did not modify our listing determination.
    At the time the proposed rule was published, we were only aware of 
one location at Boggy Slough in Houston County where coastal 
bermudagrass was observed. However, new information was provided to the 
Service during a public comment period. We are now aware of three 
additional sites where encroachment from coastal bermudagrass was 
observed. These sites included: The Texas Land Conservancy, where it is 
common; SH 204 ROW, where it is abundant (Poole 2013a, pers. comm.); 
and the original site at the SH 94--Boggy Slough, where it is locally 
common in the interior of the unit (Allen 2011a, pers. comm.). At the 
planted site on Boggy Slough, Neches River rose-mallow was observed as 
recently as August 2012. Although the coastal bermudagrass has the 
potential to spread and grow quickly, and has been known to form 
monocultures along

[[Page 56038]]

highway ROWs, the Neches River rose-mallow and coastal bermudagrass do 
not necessarily grow naturally in the same habitat. Coastal 
bermudagrass is not typically found within wetland areas. Further, the 
Neches River rose-mallow is a taller growing species, a feature that 
prevents itself from being shaded out by coastal bermudagrass. Based on 
the above information, the Service does not consider coastal 
bermudagrass a threat at this time. The TPWD concurs with the Service 
that coastal bermudagrass is not considered a threat at this time 
(Poole 2013a, pers. comm.).
    The nonnative species Chinaberry has not been previously noted at 
any of the sites, including the site mentioned by the commenter, 
compartment 16 on the Davy Crockett NF. The Service investigated this 
comment further, and Chinaberry was not mentioned in the TXNDD database 
information. Based on this information the Service does not consider 
Chinaberry a threat at this time.
    (14) Comment: A peer reviewer indicated that due to drought in 
2011, the numbers of plants were a lot fewer than years previous in SH 
94 ROW and compartment 55, Davy Crockett NF. On October 3, 2012, 
observers went to specific locations in these compartments where plants 
were known to occur, and none could be found. In 2013, rainfall has 
been about average to date, but the reviewer concluded that effects 
were evident from previous drought.
    Our Response: We agree that drought has caused impacts to said 
populations and likely other populations. Drought conditions have 
reduced the number of plants and have stunted overall Neches River 
rose-mallow plant growth (TXNDD 2012a, p. 8). We do not have knowledge 
of how drought affects the Neches River rose-mallow on a larger scale 
or how it impacts flowering or seed production. However, it is possible 
that during drought conditions, floral characteristics that are 
normally easily recognizable could be reduced and make identification 
of Neches River rose-mallow more difficult (Poole 2012b, pers. comm.). 
Since the Neches River rose-mallow is a wetland species, we understand 
that drought conditions could continue to threaten the habitat as well 
as the reproductive capability since it is likely that seed dispersal 
is water-mediated. With the likelihood that seasonal or successive 
year-round drought conditions will likely continue, ancillary threats 
from trampling and herbivory may be exacerbated. Drought is discussed 
in the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species in this final rule.
    (15) Comment: One peer reviewer noted that in spite of the fact 
that Sabine and San Augustine Counties have not seen major increases in 
human population, there has been improvement of services, such as 
communication lines, water lines, domestic gas lines, and power lines. 
These actions occur primarily in ROWs, and some occur in areas that are 
situated in potential Texas golden gladecress habitat.
    Our Response: We acknowledge that the installation of new service 
lines (e.g., communication, water, domestic gas, and power lines) could 
potentially occur in more rural areas, and these activities typically 
occur in road ROWs, such as where the Texas golden gladecress occurs. 
There are two known Texas golden gladecress sites that extend into road 
ROWs. When this rule is effective (see DATES), section 7 consultation 
requirements and section 9 prohibitions under the Act will apply to the 
Texas golden gladecress and Neches River rose-mallow. See our response 
to Comment 12 and Available Conservation Measures for more discussion 
of this process.
    (16) Comment: One peer reviewer pointed out an example of the flaws 
of teaming these two species together can be seen in the statement in 
the proposed rule that says, ``Prolonged or frequent droughts can 
exacerbate habitat degradation for both species.'' He indicated that a 
river-bottom dwelling species like the Neches River rose-mallow might 
be negatively impacted when drought allows other species to encroach. 
However, drought could positively impact Texas golden gladecress as it 
might exclude woody closure of glades. This reviewer noted his personal 
observation of the drought of 2011 dramatically pushing back the edges 
of glades in the Weches and in tiny saline prairies.
    Our Response: We agree that the droughty conditions of hot, dry 
summers are a part of the reason why Texas golden gladecress can remain 
competitive on the glades. However, prolonged drought, especially when 
it occurs in successive years, has resulted in Texas golden gladecress 
not appearing above ground in some years, and therefore not flowering 
or producing seed in those years. We do not know how many years of poor 
seed production, or no seed production at all, will affect the survival 
of the population. Negative impacts of drought on the Neches River 
rose-mallow are discussed in our response to Comment 14 as well in the 
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section of this final rule.
    (17) Comment: A peer reviewer commented on the occurrence and use 
of nonnative and potentially invasive pasture grasses such as coastal 
bermudagrass, Paspalum notatum (bahiagrass), and Lolium perenne 
(perennial ryegrass), which are commonly used to re-vegetate many road 
ROWs. These grasses are common on most ROWs and aggressively grow in 
open, sunlit areas.
    Our Response: The Service recognizes the occurrence and use of 
nonnative and potentially invasive pasture grasses along ROWs, and that 
ROWs typically become monoculture stands of these invasive species, 
thereby out-competing natives. The Service has verified that both 
coastal bermudagrass and bahiagrass are included in mixtures used to 
re-seed ROWs (Adams 2013c, pers. comm.). There are two Texas golden 
gladecress and three Neches River rose-mallow known populations growing 
along ROWs, which could be planted with nonnatives. We are not aware of 
any Texas golden gladecress sites where the Texas golden gladecress 
itself is being impacted by these grasses. Coastal bermudagrass has 
been observed on four Neches River rose-mallow sites (see our response 
to Comment 13 for additional details). We investigated these nonnative 
species as potential threats and incorporated this information into our 
analysis in the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section for 
the Texas golden gladecress and Neches River rose-mallow in this final 
rule. There is the potential for such nonnative, invasive species to 
impact the Neches River rose-mallow, as well as the Texas golden 
gladecress, in the future if these grasses out-compete native plants 
for soil nutrients, space, and light. However, these invasive species 
are not currently a threat, and there are no data indicating that these 
species will be a threat in the near future.
    (18) Comment: One peer reviewer provided new observations about 
damage to habitat due to feral hog activity. In October 2012, feral 
hogs had broken and flattened plants in compartment 16, Davy Crockett 
NF. Large groups of feral hogs were seen in two Neches River rose-
mallow sites (compartment 55 and compartment 16, both in the Davy 
Crockett NF). Neches River rose-mallow habitat is only surficially dry 
and can be easily disturbed by hogs, as made evident in compartment 20, 
Davy Crockett NF.
    Our Response: The Service has included this information in our 
analysis of feral hog impacts on the Neches River rose-mallow in the 
Summary of Factors Affecting the

[[Page 56039]]

Species section in this final rule. Based on this information, the 
Service recognizes that feral hogs impact the species and that feral 
hogs will likely continue to impact the species in the near future. 
However, at this time, the severity of impacts to the species is low. 
The level of impacts from feral hogs does not change the determination 
to list the species as threatened versus endangered.
    (19) Comment: One peer reviewer commented on the impacts that 
beavers have had on one Neches River rose-mallow site: Compartment 16, 
Davy Crockett NF. In general, water levels fluctuated due to beaver 
activity. It was observed that larger trees along the water's edge were 
damaged by beavers, although it appears that water levels had receded 
to the same level prior to the beaver activity.
    Our Response: The Service is aware of beaver presence at 
compartment 16 of the Davy Crockett NF. We acknowledge that beaver 
activity (i.e., dams) could have impacted this Neches River rose-mallow 
site. However, with seasonally fluctuating water levels and no 
estimates on plant abundance before and after beaver activity, it is 
unclear how or if beaver activity was a factor in the size of the 
Neches River rose-mallow population. We are uncertain if there was a 
correlation between the damage done to this site and the changes in 
water flow and the site hydrology, and whether this had a positive or 
negative impact on the species. No other sites have been impacted by 
beaver activity. We do not consider the effects of beaver damming to be 
a threat to the Neches River rose-mallow.
    (20) Comment: One peer reviewer agreed with the use of Weches 
glauconite as road base material being a threat. He indicated his 
belief that it should be possible to locate Weches mines where 
conditions are not suitable for the glade community and reiterated that 
the Weches is a highly variable rock formation. This peer reviewer 
provided new information about other uses for Weches glauconite, 
including animal feed additives, that were not addressed in the 
proposed rule. This reviewer expressed his opinion that it is also 
possible that in a few decades the shortage of mineral phosphate rock 
might make some of the deposits viable for agriculture use. He referred 
to information from Dr. Ernest Ledger (geologist) regarding instances 
where rare earth elements are being mined in the Weches or Reklaw 
Formations.
    Our Response: In analyzing threats to a species, the Service uses 
the best scientific and commercial data available to analyze the 
current threats and threats anticipated to occur in the near future. 
The Service has identified quarrying Weches glauconite as a current and 
future threat to the Texas golden gladecress. We know that several 
Texas golden gladecress populations have been lost in areas where 
glauconite quarries were developed (see the Summary of Factors 
Affecting the Species sections of the proposed rule and this final 
rule). We did not specifically identify animal feed additive as a use 
for the Weches glauconite in our proposed rule, but we have 
incorporated this information into the Summary of Factors Affecting the 
Species section of this final rule. The impact to the species from 
quarrying is the clearing and excavation of vegetation and soil during 
development. The specific uses of the Weches glauconite are not 
relevant to the impacts from quarrying. However, new uses or an 
increase in current uses of Weches glauconite may increase the demand 
of this resource and therefore increase the amount of quarrying 
activities (that is, ground disturbance). However, the Service does not 
have information that either of these are occurring.
    Section 7 of the Act requires Federal action agencies to consult 
with the Service to ensure their action do not jeopardize the continued 
existence of the species. However, there are limited or no Federal 
nexuses for glauconite quarry projects. Entities implementing projects 
that could impact the Texas golden gladecress could play a significant 
role in the conservation of the species by voluntarily working with the 
Service, the State, or conservation groups to construct their projects 
in such a way as to avoid or minimize impacts to the species. Site 
selection of quarries outside of endemic plant communities containing 
Texas golden gladecress could be a measure to avoid or minimize impacts 
to the species.
    Additional research of the habitat requirements of the Texas golden 
gladecress, particularly the surface soils and subsurface composition 
of the bedrock, may help in determining whether there are particular 
outcrops that should be protected for Texas golden gladecress versus 
ones that will never support the species and would therefore not be 
problematic if selected for a quarry. This is an issue that may be 
addressed during recovery planning.
    (21) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested using genetic evidence to 
evaluate how past climate changes, particularly drought, as well as 
dispersal mechanisms and barriers to dispersal, may have affected the 
distribution and endemism of the Texas golden gladecress and the Neches 
River rose-mallow. He indicated his opinion that a better understanding 
of these factors would have bearing on future management 
considerations.
    Our Response: It is possible that the past droughts have affected 
the distribution of Neches River rose-mallow and Texas golden 
gladecress in east Texas. For Neches River rose-mallow, geographic 
barriers may have arisen due to past drought events, potentially 
limiting genetic exchange between populations. Humans may have 
contributed to further endemism of the species by altering habitat, 
which functionally created barriers to dispersal and resulted in more 
isolation of populations. However, we can only postulate that these are 
the reasons for the endemism of the Neches River rose-mallow to certain 
river systems, and more specifically to surficially dry habitats as 
compared to other east Texas Hibiscus species. Additional research is 
needed to assess the validity of this hypothesis.
    With regard to the Texas golden gladecress, the Weches outcrops 
generally occur in small, isolated or segmented strips (George 1987, p. 
4; George and Nixon 1990, p. 118), making the habitat, in essence, 
small islands separated from one another by dissimilar habitat. The 
current patchiness and separation of the Texas golden gladecress 
population sites may be, at least in part, due to past droughts, but 
may also be a result of the habitat being fragmented by land 
conversions or lost to succession by woody species. Because we lack 
information on seed dispersal of Texas golden gladecress, we do not 
know how the species spread historically or how it came to be 
distributed where it is. Therefore, we do not know if the isolation of 
the populations is due to vicariance (populations on outcrops that are 
geographically separated by surrounding forest) or due to a lack of 
dispersal to new habitats or between population sites. Genetic evidence 
may help to clarify the relatedness or lack thereof between the 
remaining extant populations, but that may be undertaken as part of the 
recovery process.
    (22) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that the presence of a 
currently listed endangered species, white bladderpod, confers some 
protection for other Weches glade plants at sites where it occurs.
    Our Response: There are two Texas golden gladecress sites where 
white bladderpod is also found: Chapel Hill and Caney Creek Glade Site 
1. Additionally, both species were known to co-occur at historical 
Caney Creek

[[Page 56040]]

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

Comments From States

    Section 4(i) of the Act states, ``the Secretary shall submit to the 
State agency a written justification for his failure to adopt 
regulations consistent with the agency's comments or petition.'' 
Comments received from the State agencies and government officials 
regarding the proposal to list the Texas golden gladecress and Neches 
River rose-mallow are addressed below.
    (23) Comment: These species have not been fully studied. There are 
significant concerns with the quality of data and analysis the Service 
used for its determination. The proposal is based largely on 
inconclusive reports and vast speculation about operations thought to 
affect habitats, existing regulatory mechanisms, conservation efforts, 
species populations and potential threats that fail to provide any 
sound scientific foundation on which to justify the listing of these 
species.
    Our Response: It is often the case that biological information may 
be lacking for rare species; however, the Act requires the Service to 
make determinations based on the best scientific and commercial data 
available after conducting a review of the status of the species and 
after taking into account those efforts, if any, being made to protect 
such species. We are also required to make our listing determinations 
based on the five threat factors, singly or in combination, as set 
forth in section 4(a)(1) of the Act.
    We sought comments from independent peer reviewers to ensure that 
our designation is based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and 
analysis. Peer reviewers were generally in agreement with the 
conclusions from our threats analysis that habitat modification and 
destruction due to human activities, as well as woody encroachment into 
Weches glades, likely adversely affects the Texas golden gladecress. 
The reviewers enhanced our understanding of some threats by providing 
personal observations of habitat conditions at some population sites of 
both species. A peer reviewer brought the ongoing installation of 
utility service improvements with potential to impact Texas golden 
gladecress in portions of its range to our attention. Peer reviewers 
also agreed that drought negatively affects the Neches River rose-
mallow, and they provided new, detailed information on the types of 
invasive plants that most seem to constitute a threat to the species, 
as well as the extent of the invasion by these plants into Neches River 
rose-mallow population sites. In addition, they furnished information 
about the presence of feral hogs at specific Neches River rose-mallow 
population locations, as well as observations of sedimentation from a 
highway construction project into one Neches River rose-mallow site. 
One peer reviewer indicated his agreement that the Neches River rose-
mallow lacks protective mechanisms other than U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers (USACE) permits. One peer reviewer expressed his opinion that 
we needed more pertinent geological information on the outcrops across 
a larger geographic area than just Nacogdoches, San Augustine, and 
Sabine Counties. He also suggested chemical analysis of the outcrops 
known to support the Texas golden gladecress so as to better understand 
their unique qualities in order to use that information to seek out 
additional sites to survey for heretofore undiscovered populations or 
to carry out recovery actions.
    We also solicited information from the general public, 
nongovernmental conservation organizations, State and Federal agencies 
that are familiar with the species and their habitats in east Texas, 
academic institutions, and groups and individuals that might have 
information that would contribute to an update of our knowledge of the 
Texas golden gladecress and the Neches River rose-mallow, as well as 
the activities and natural processes that might be contributing to the 
decline of either species. We used information garnered from this 
solicitation in addition to information in the files of the Service, 
TPWD, TXNDD's elements of occurrence records for both species, 
published journal articles, newspaper and magazine articles, status 
reports contracted by the Service and TPWD, reports from site visits, 
and telephone and electronic mail conversations with knowledgeable 
individuals. We also used satellite and aerial imagery to ascertain 
changes in land cover and land use at historical population sites and 
to determine whether changes in land cover and land use at historical 
populations sites and to determine whether the presence of primary 
constituent elements for each species were still in place. 
Additionally, we used the results of population monitoring from site 
visits to look at abundance, and if enough information was available, 
to get an idea of trends in the populations. In October 2011, we also 
made field trips to known sites where we were granted access, to verify 
land uses and contribute to the veracity of our threats analysis. In 
March 2012, we helped to organize and carry out a workshop and field 
tour of Texas golden gladecress sites for purposes of assisting 
landowners and agricultural agencies to become familiar with the 
species and its habitat. We also revisited accessible Texas golden 
gladecress sites at that time. In August 2012, we attended a Neches 
River rose-mallow workshop and field tour conducted by TPWD and 
revisited Neches River rose-mallow population sites. We used the best 
scientific and commercial information available in assessing population 
status, recognizing the limitations of some of the information.
    (24) Comment: There is no conclusive indication that glauconite 
quarrying, oil and gas activities, invasive species, or pine tree 
plantings threaten Texas golden gladecress.
    Our Response: As stated in the proposed rule and this final rule, 
three historical populations of Texas golden gladecress were documented 
from sites where glauconite quarries are now located. The sole 
introduced Texas golden gladecress population, in Nacogdoches County, 
was extirpated by construction of a pipeline as recently as 2011. The 
Weches glades are documented to be overgrown with invasive, native and 
nonnative plants. The potential for negative effects from pine trees, 
planted in such close proximity to glades that shading and leaf litter 
accumulations adversely affect the glades, was pointed out to us by 
several respondents during the comment periods on the proposed rule, as 
well as one of our peer reviewers based on their personal observations 
(see the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section of this final 
rule).

[[Page 56041]]

    (25) Comment: There is no conclusive indication that the invasion 
by other species, development and construction projects, herbicide use, 
or herbivory pose a risk of loss or degradation to the Neches River 
rose-mallow.
    Our Response: A thorough analysis of the impacts of nonnative and 
native species encroachment, TXDOT roadway construction and maintenance 
projects, herbicide use, and herbivory were discussed in the proposed 
rule and in this final rule. All populations of the Neches River rose-
mallow have been encroached upon by Chinese tallow. This invasive 
species is fast-growing and, once established in a habitat, is highly 
destructive, choking out native species. Development and construction 
projects will likely continue to be a threat to the species. Herbicides 
are a threat that could impact 7 of 11 (64 percent) Neches River rose-
mallow populations. We do not consider herbivory to be a threat to the 
Neches River rose-mallow at this time. See the Summary of Factors 
Affecting the Species section of this final rule for our complete 
evaluation.
    (26) Comment: The best available information stated that the Texas 
golden gladecress and the Neches River rose-mallow are resilient 
species.
    Our Response: Based on our review of the best available scientific 
and commercial data, we concluded that the Texas golden gladecress 
exhibits low to moderate resiliency. Although the species has persisted 
at several sites in the face of bulldozing, drought, and invasion by 
woody species, likely due to its persistent seed bank, and has also 
stayed in existence in small sites with small numbers of individuals, 
perhaps due to self-fertilization, it has shown no resiliency to 
impacts such as excavations (e.g., quarrying) and pipelines. For more 
information, see the Determination section of this rule. In the case 
for the Neches River rose-mallow, the best available scientific 
information indicates that, while reductions in the species' range have 
not occurred, there have been significant impacts from habitat 
modification and loss that have caused reductions in most, if not all, 
of the known Neches River rose-mallow populations. The Neches River 
rose-mallow is adapted to highly variable rates of water flow, 
including seasonal high and low flows, and occasional floods and 
droughts. However, as the habitat is so water-dependent, threats that 
could adversely modify its habitat, including invasion from nonnative 
and native woody vegetation, hydrological changes, herbicide, 
trampling, and drought, can have huge impacts. The Neches River rose-
mallow likely requires high precipitation and flowing water or flood 
events to disperse seed (Warnock 1995, p. 20; Scott 1997, p. 8; Reeves 
2008, p. 3), and although the Neches River rose-mallow is adapted to 
persisting during dry portions of the year, a complete lack of water 
can diminish seed production, range expansion, and genetic exchange.
    (27) Comment: The Texas golden gladecress is already adequately 
protected by co-existing with the federally listed white bladderpod and 
collaborations between the Service and several partners.
    Our Response: White bladderpod is found at two of the remaining 
known Texs golden gladecress population sites (see our response to 
Comment 22). Both sites are privately owned with the exception of the 
Texas golden gladecress plants that extend onto the Sunrise Road ROW at 
Caney Creek Glade Site 1; therefore, absent a Federal nexus, no legal 
protections are afforded to either species under the Act. The Chapel 
Hill landowner does mow or bush-hog at least once per year to try to 
keep woody plants from overrunning this small tract, but this action is 
strictly voluntary on his part and not assured into the future.
    (28) Comment: The mechanisms and plans provided by the Davy 
Crockett NF, the TXDOT, groundwater management areas and conservation 
districts, federally protected wetlands, and a number of private 
initiatives and agreements all serve to adequately protect the Neches 
River rose-mallow species.
    Our Response: We agree that the Neches River rose-mallow does 
benefit from some protections on USFS and TXDOT lands. As of the 
effective date of this rule (see DATES), the Neches River rose-mallow 
is a federally listed threatened species. Further, we are publishing a 
final rule on designation of critical habitat for the Texas golden 
gladecress and the Neches River rose-mallow under the Act elsewhere in 
today's Federal Register. Therefore, if a Federal nexus exists for a 
project, projects within the species' range or within designated 
critical habitat units must avoid jeopardizing the species or adversely 
modifying its designated critical habitat.
    (29) Comment: Local elected officials were not notified of the 
proposed designation during the public comment period. It is crucial 
that the Service contacts potentially impacted private landowners, 
local elected officials and leaders, and industry in these counties.
    Our Response: We made substantial efforts to notify the public and 
interested parties, as described here. We announced the opening of the 
public comment period on the proposed rule in Nacogdoches, Houston, and 
Harrison Counties via newspaper public notices on September 19 and 20, 
2012. Within 14 days post-publication of the proposed rule in the 
Federal Register, the Service mailed 164 letters to recipients that 
included both U.S. senators; the U.S. representative from east Texas; 
two State senators and three State representatives for the districts in 
question; and the county judges and all four commissioners from each of 
the following counties: Sabine, San Augustine, Nacogdoches, Houston, 
Cherokee, and Trinity. We also notified, via letter, State officials 
including the Texas Governor, State Comptroller, Texas General Land 
Office (TGLO) Commissioner, and Executive Directors of Texas Parks and 
Wildlife Department (TPWD) and Texas Department of Transportation 
(TXDOT). Letters were also sent to staff of interested or affected 
agencies (TPWD, Texas Council of Environmental Quality, TXDOT, Texas 
Railroad Commission, Texas General Land Office, Texas Forestry Service, 
Texas Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture's 
Natural Resources Conservation Service, USACE), universities, 
conservation organizations and other nongovernmental organizations, and 
representatives of the following industries: Glauconite quarries, oil 
and gas exploration and production, timber production, and forestry 
services. In addition, we sent letters to some landowners, including 
private individuals, USFS, and TXDOT.
    More specifically with regard to landowners, in September 2011, 
approximately 1 year prior to publication of the proposed rule, we sent 
letters to 107 entities, including representatives of many of the 
agencies or organizations listed above, informing the recipients of our 
need to gather and analyze the best available information for our use 
in developing a proposed rule to list and designate critical habitat 
for both species. We then added any landowner contacts that were given 
to us to our notification list. For some sites, landownership was 
clarified in file records or through communications with 
representatives of other organizations. Furthermore, for the Texas 
golden gladecress, we partnered with TPWD in March 2012, to host a 
Weches Glades workshop and field tour in San Augustine, to which we 
invited four private landowners (two with Texas golden gladecress and 
two with white bladderpod populations on their property). As 
preparation for the field

[[Page 56042]]

tour, permission to access sites was obtained from these four 
landowners. The purpose of the workshop and field tour was to acquaint 
landowners, and agency representatives that work with private 
landowners, with the glade and outcrop habitats, rare plants, and the 
listing process and implications, particularly as it applies to plants. 
In addition to these landowners, 24 other individuals were invited to 
the workshop, including two San Augustine County commissioners; the 
Mayor of San Augustine; the Chairman of the local Soil and Water 
Conservation District; and individuals from the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service, Texas Forest Service, a private forestry services 
company, and a mining company. Of the 28 invitees, 17 attended the 
workshop and field tour.
    As additional outreach to Neches River rose-mallow landowners, land 
managers, and agencies that work with them, TPWD organized a workshop 
and 2-day field trip in August 2012. The workshop also furnished an 
opportunity to explain the listing process and its applicability for 
plants. A pre-field trip workshop allowed information to be presented 
to 45 attendees that included the Texas Land Conservancy (owner of the 
Neches River rose-mallow Lovelady site) and TXDOT (owner of the ROW 
sites along SHs 204 and 94).
    On April 16, 2013, the day of Federal Register publication of the 
document making available the draft economic analysis and reopening the 
comment period for the proposal to list the plants and designate 
critical habitat, we emailed letters to 157 people including 
representatives of agriculture, timber, oil and gas, and mining 
industries; local elected officials from the counties in question; 
agency staff that work with landowners; and those landowners for whom 
we had email addresses. Within 2 days of publication in the Federal 
Register, we also sent 208 letters by mail to State and local elected 
officials (including all county judges and commissioners); industry 
representatives; scholars; conservation organizations; State, Federal, 
and local agencies; and all individual landowners who had been 
identified through the past 2 years since our initial information 
solicitation in September 2011.
    (30) Comment: Multiple State entities expressed concerns that these 
listings will hamper economic development. They indicated their belief 
that listing could impact agriculture and timber planting operations; 
oil and gas operations; and highway construction and maintenance 
projects in Nacogdoches, Sabine, and San Augustine Counties. They were 
concerned that projects with a Federal component could be delayed or 
cancelled in the listed counties. They also indicated concern that 
listing could impact ground water management, reservoir construction, 
road and bridge projects, and agriculture operations in Cherokee, 
Harrison, Houston, Nacogdoches, and Trinity Counties.
    Our Response: Under section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we must base a 
listing decision solely on the best scientific and commercial data 
available. The legislative history of this provision clearly states the 
intent of Congress to ensure that listing decisions are ``. . . based 
solely on biological criteria and to prevent non-biological criteria 
from affecting such decisions . . . ''. Therefore, we did not consider 
the economic impacts of listing these species. See our response to 
Comment 12.
    With respect to effects of listing on highway construction and 
maintenance, TXDOT has formally consulted with the Service only once 
for the white bladderpod in the 26 years that the plant has been 
listed. This formal consultation took place in 2009, for a highway 
safety improvement project on approximately 10 miles (16.1 km) of SH 
21. The consultation resulted in slight modifications to TXDOT's 
original plan for a 4-ft (1.2-m) widening of the shoulder, instead 
widening it to 3 ft (0.9 m) for a short distance around a white 
bladderpod population. The Service and TXDOT agreed to creation of a 
``No Work Area'' around the white bladderpod during construction phases 
to protect the plant from foot and vehicle traffic and to prevent any 
staging of equipment or materials. Provisions were made for TXDOT to 
continue maintenance (mowing) within the No Work Area post-project 
during the plant's dormant season (July 1 to August 31). The TXDOT also 
agreed to enhance habitat by hydroaxing invading woody vegetation at 
three white bladderpod sites on private land as compensation for loss 
of one or more plants that could not be avoided. These are the types of 
recommendations that are anticipated in the few situations where Texas 
golden gladecress occurs in State-maintained ROWs. The TXDOT has 
indicated that they do not have major highway construction projects 
planned anywhere near the critical habitat within the next 20 years, so 
we do not anticipate delays of highway construction projects.
    (31) Comment: Although Neches River rose-mallow is considered 
extirpated in the SH 230 ROW, in 2012, Laura Baker, a graduate student 
at Stephen F. Austin State University, reported seeing Neches River 
rose-mallows within the ROW somewhere near the former site (Baker 2012, 
pers. comm., in Melinchuk 2012, p. 3). This observation needs to be 
verified.
    Our Response: We visited the site along SH 230 in Houston County in 
2011, and did not find any Neches River rose-mallow plants. This site 
was considered extirpated due to herbicide overspray along the ROW. 
However, based on this comment, the population could still be present. 
Another commenter provided information regarding reintroduced 
populations near the cities of Douglass and Chireno, and at the 
Pineywoods Native Plant Center, all in Nacogdoches County. These 
populations need to be verified as Neches River rose-mallow and not a 
hybrid variety.
    (32) Comment: The Neches River rose-mallow and the other two co-
occurring Hibiscus species are wetland rather than aquatic plants. They 
do not grow in permanently standing water. They grow near permanent or 
ephemeral water bodies, and the sites are occasionally flooded. For 
most of their life cycle they grow on saturated soils that can become 
surficially dry. The proposed rule (77 FR 55973) states that the Neches 
River rose-mallow prefers deeper water; it would be more correct to say 
that the plants prefer areas near deeper water.
    Our Response: In our proposed rule at 77 FR 55973, we state, 
``Geographically, these three species [the halberdleaf, crimsoneyed, 
and Neches River rose-mallows] can be found within similar habitats, 
but the halberdleaf and the crimsoneyed rose-mallows prefer deeper 
water and are found along edges of major rivers and streams (Blanchard 
1976, pp. 10-14; Poole 2011b, pers. comm.), compared with the [Neches 
River] rose-mallow, which is found in side channels and floodplains of 
major river drainages.''
    Neches River rose-mallow is an endemic east Texas wetland species, 
occupying relatively open habitat. Soils are of the Inceptisol or 
Entisol orders (Diggs et al.2006, pp. 46, 79) and, although generally 
water-saturated, can often be surficially dry. Geographically, the 
Neches River rose-mallow and the two other co-occurring Hibiscus 
species can be found within similar habitats; however, the Neches River 
rose-mallow prefers areas near deeper water, whereas the halberdleaf 
and crimsoneyed rose-mallows are found along edges of major rivers and 
streams (Blanchard 1976, pp. 10-14; Poole 2011b, pers. comm.).
    (33) Comment: The general habitat for the Neches River rose-mallow 
is more similar to seasonally flooded river floodplains (Diggs et al. 
2006, pp. 103-

[[Page 56043]]

104) rather than the short-leaf or loblolly pine-hardwood forest, 
longleaf pine, or loblolly pine forest (77 FR 55973).
    Our Response: As stated in the proposed rule, Gould (1975, p. 10) 
and Correll and Johnston (1979, p. 1030) described the generic 
vegetation community of the Neches River rose-mallow as the Pineywoods 
of east Texas. Diggs et al. (2006, pp. 2-3) also describes the generic 
geographic area as the Pineywoods; however, this was not mentioned in 
the proposed rule. More specifically, Neches River rose-mallow habitat 
within the Pineywoods is more accurately classified by Diggs et al. 
(2006, pp. 103-104) as ``seasonally flooded river floodplains.'' 
Natural bottomlands occupy the flat, broad portions of the floodplains 
of major rivers and are seasonally inundated with loamy to clayey 
seasonally flood and host flood-tolerant species of oak, sweetgum, elm, 
swamp tupelo, and red maple (Diggs et al. 2006, p. 103). Stands of 
shortleaf, longleaf, and loblolly pine are not occupied by the Neches 
River rose-mallow.
    (34) Comment: The proposed rule states that flowing water is 
required for seed dispersal downstream (77 FR 55974, 55988). However, 
research suggests this process has not entirely been investigated. 
Warnock (1995) notes that seed dispersal of Neches River rose-mallow is 
probably by water, Scott (1997, p. 5) stated that seed dispersal 
appears to be entirely water dependent, and Reeves (2008) discusses the 
dispersal of Hibiscus moscheutos (including lasiocarpos). The commenter 
states that although water-mediated seed dispersal of the Neches River 
rose-mallow is highly likely, it is not known that flowing water is 
required for seed dispersal downstream.
    Our Response: We agree that based on the best scientific and 
commercial data available, Neches River rose-mallow seeds are likely to 
be dispersed by flowing water. This change is reflected in the 
``Habitat'' section for the Neches River rose-mallow of this final 
rule, yet this comment did not change our listing determination for the 
Neches River rose-mallow.
    (35) Comment: Of the four introduced populations of Neches River 
rose-mallow, all but the experimental site (which has been manipulated) 
have experienced population declines (50 percent in Davy Crockett NF 
compartment 20, 90 percent in Davy Crockett NF compartment 16, and 95 
percent in Davy Crockett NF compartment 11). Rapidly declining 
populations such as those in Davy Crockett NF compartments 16 and 11 do 
not appear viable.
    Our Response: The Act requires us to determine if the Texas golden 
gladecress and Neches River rose-mallow warrant listing based on our 
assessment of the five listing factors described in the Act using the 
best scientific and commercial data available at the time we conduct a 
review of the species. As part of our assessment, we evaluate whether a 
threat(s) is causing declines in numbers of individual plants in all 
populations or in specific population sites. However, a population's 
viability in and of itself, if not influenced by specific threats, is 
not a factor considered in our evaluation.
    (36) Comment: One commenter noted that several of the population 
estimates throughout the proposed rule were not accurate or consistent. 
Information pertaining to sites 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8 in Table 4 of the 
proposed rule needs to be changed. Site 2 states 78 plants were counted 
in 2003, but this should read stems. Site 3 states that 200-250 Neches 
River rose-mallow plants were introduced on compartment 20 of the Davy 
Crockett NF in 2000; however, the critical habitat section (Critical 
Habitat Unit 7) states that 350-400 plants were introduced in 2000. The 
actual number introduced is important in evaluating the success of the 
reintroduction. Site 8 states several hundred plants were counted in 
2001, but this should read several hundred flowers. Site 7, the SH 204 
ROW site, has had as many as 75 individuals, not a maximum number of 
seven plants.
    Our Response: The language in Table 4 pertaining to site 2 
(compartment 16 of the Davy Crockett NF) has been updated. Site 2 
(compartment 16) and Site 4 (compartment 20) were planted in 2000 
(Nemec 2000, p. 3), totaling 700 plants in both units, with about 450 
plants in Site 2 and about 200-250 plants in Site 4. Site 6 (SH 204) 
has been observed with about 75 plants in 1997, its maximum count to 
date, and this change is reflected in this final rule.
    (37) Comment: One commenter noted the steep decline in the 
reintroduced site in compartment 16 of the Davy Crockett NF where the 
population has decreased by 90 percent (from 450 to 43 plants). Whether 
the loss of the beaver dam resulted in this drastic decrease needs 
further study.
    Our Response: See our response to Comment 19.
    (38) Comment: In the proposed rule under the heading ``Trampling by 
Feral Hogs and Cattle'' (77 FR 55987), it states that because Neches 
River rose-mallow habitat is permanently or temporarily flooded, feral 
hogs have limited access to the plants. Neches River rose-mallows do 
not occur in permanently standing water, although they may grow 
adjacent to such sites. Their habitat is only flooded infrequently. For 
most of the year, it is surficially dry and easily disturbed by feral 
hogs. The commenter also noted feral hog damage of Neches River rose-
mallow (breaking and flattening) at the introduction site in 
compartment 20 on the Davy Crockett NF (TXNDD 2012a).
    Our Response: National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps were used to 
verify habitat at each Neches River rose-mallow site. Compartment 20 
was described on the NWI map as permanently or temporarily flooded 
habitat. The Service recognizes that Neches River rose-mallow prefers 
areas located near deeper water, generally with temporary not permanent 
standing water. The long-term impact on the Neches River rose-mallow 
from feral hog damage is unknown. Feral hog presence has been limited 
to five Neches River rose-mallow sites with minimal damage to habitat. 
The Service considers feral hogs a present threat and one that will 
likely continue into the near future. However, at this time, the 
severity of impacts to the species is low. This threat does not change 
the determination to list the species as threatened versus endangered. 
See also our response to Comment 18.
    (39) Comment: The listing proposal states that no genetic studies 
have been conducted on the Neches River rose-mallow; however, there 
have been two such studies by Klips in 1995 and Mendoza in 2004. 
Neither study looked at genetic drift, inbreeding, or the possible 
threat from hybridization. It seems premature to conclude that small 
population size and hybridization are not potential threats.
    Our Response: The Service has reviewed Klips (1995, entire) and 
Mendoza (2004, entire) and incorporated this information into our 
analysis in the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section of 
this final rule. While these studies pertain to genetic analysis, they 
do not look at genetic drift, inbreeding, or the possible threat from 
hybridization, as the commenter acknowledges. Based on the best 
scientific and commercial data available, we do not consider 
hybridization or small population size a threat to the species at this 
time. See our response to Comment 11 for additional information 
regarding this comment.
    (40) Comment: Listing of the two plants will have adverse impacts 
on the State transportation system other than in instances where they 
occur in or immediately adjacent to State-owned

[[Page 56044]]

ROW. Listing will hamper economic development and delay projects that 
require section 7 consultations.
    Our Response: See our response to Comment 30 above.
    (41) Comment: There are existing mechanisms that adequately protect 
both species.
    Our response: See our response to Comments 22, 27, and 28.

Federal Agency Comments

    (42) Comment: The Natural Resources Conservation Service indicated 
their willingness to assist landowners and land managers in identifying 
those elements that may have a negative or positive impact on the 
species.
    Our Response: We appreciate the Natural Resources Conservation 
Services' (NCRS') willingness to help landowners with actions to 
conserve these species. We foresee that NRCS' assistance to landowners 
and to the Service will be invaluable in delivering conservation 
programs like the Service's Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program that 
can help willing landowners plan and implement projects to restore 
habitat for both of these plant species.

Public Comments

    (43) Comment: One commenter provided information regarding 
reintroduced populations near the cities of Douglass and Chireno, and 
at the Pineywoods Native Plant Center, all in Nacogdoches County. These 
populations have not been verified by the Service or a species expert. 
These populations need to be verified as Neches River rose-mallow and 
not a hybrid variety.
    Our Response: These populations have not been verified by the 
Service or species experts. Until such verification, the Service cannot 
use this information in our analysis.
    (44) Comment: Several commenters expressed their beliefs that these 
species have not been fully studied. They indicated that there are 
significant concerns with the quality of data and analysis the Service 
used for its determination. They believe that the proposal is based 
largely on inconclusive reports and vast speculation about operations 
thought to affect habitats, existing regulatory mechanisms, 
conservation efforts, species populations, and potential threats that 
fail to provide any sound scientific foundation on which to justify the 
listing of these species. Other commenters assert that the Service does 
not have the scientific justification to list these species.
    Our Response: See our response to Comment 23.
    (45) Comment: As outlined in the 2003 St. Augustine Glades 
Conservation Area Plan, TNC, along with other resource professionals, 
identified the conservation concerns and challenges for sustaining 
populations of the Texas golden gladecress.
    Our Response: We were aware of this document and considered this in 
our preparation of this determination.
    (46) Comment: A commenter recommended that the benefits provided by 
conservation efforts currently in place in an area be fully considered.
    Our Response: Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires us to take 
into account those efforts being made by a State or foreign nation, or 
any political subdivision of a State or foreign nation, to protect such 
species. We consider relevant Federal, State, and tribal laws and 
regulations when developing our analysis. Regulatory mechanisms may 
preclude the need for listing if we determine such mechanisms 
adequately address the threats to the species such that listing is no 
longer warranted. However, existing regulatory mechanisms are 
inadequate to protect these species, and the ongoing conservation 
efforts are not sufficient to remove the threats to these species. 
Please see ``Other Conservation Efforts'' under ``A. The Present or 
Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or 
Range'' for the Texas golden gladecress and Neches River rose-mallow in 
this final rule.
    (47) Comment: Multiple commenters believe that interested parties 
should be given sufficient opportunity to review and comment on any 
proposal, including review of scientific data from an independent 
specialist's economic analysis of the current proposal, before the 
Service makes a final decision in this rulemaking. Similarly, any data 
provided to Service during future public hearings should also be made 
available to the public for review and comment.
    Our Response: This information was provided to the public for 
review and comment. Please see our response to comment 29 above for a 
full description.
    (48) Comment: One commenter recommended that any proposal to list a 
species should include easily accessible and transparent information 
about cited literature. Another commenter noted that Executive Order 
13463 directs agencies to provide timely online access to the 
rulemaking docket on https://www.regulations.gov, including relevant 
scientific and technical findings, in a format that can be easily 
searched and downloaded (E.O. 13463, sec. 2(b)). The proposed rule 
failed to provide a meaningful opportunity to understand and comment on 
the Service's proposal.
    Our Response: Executive Order 13463, signed by the President on 
April 18, 2008, amends Executive Orders 13389 (Creation of the Gulf 
Coast Recovery and Rebuilding Council) and 13390 (Establishment of a 
Coordinator of Federal Support for the Recovery and Rebuilding of the 
Gulf Coast Region). None of these three Executive Orders directs 
Federal agencies to provide timely online access to the rulemaking 
docket. We believe the commenter is referring to Executive Order 13563, 
``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' and we believe that we 
have met the direction of that Executive Order. For our proposed rule 
to list the species and designate critical habitat, we provided the 
literature cited bibliography on https://www.regulations.gov when we 
published the proposed rule. The proposed rule also stated that 
additional tools and supporting information that we developed for that 
proposal were available at the Service's field office in Corpus Christi 
by appointment or that arrangements could be made to get that 
information by calling the field office. For this final determination, 
the literature cited bibliography and all tools and supporting 
information are available at:
     https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-
2012-0064,
     https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ElectronicLibrary/ElectronicLibrary_Main.cfm,
     https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ClearLakeTexas, and
     Texas Coastal Ecological Services Field Office in Corpus 
Christi (see ADDRESSES).
    (49) Comment: The Service's failure to examine relevant evidence, 
explain its assumptions, consider contrary evidence in the studies on 
which it relies, identify uncertainties, share the studies it relied 
upon, and utilize basic scientific principles in its predictive 
analysis is arbitrary, capricious, and not in accordance with the law. 
There is no basis in the record to support listing the plants under the 
Act.
    Our Response: As we are unable to identify from this comment the 
specific assumptions or contradictory evidence that the commenter is 
referring to, we cannot adequately provide a response to that part of 
this comment. We assessed the status of both species using the best 
scientific and commercial data available. We obtained this information 
by reviewing the candidate assessments that had been done for each 
species since they were first determined to be warranted for listing 
(in 1975 for the

[[Page 56045]]

Neches River rose-mallow, and in 1997 for the Texas golden gladecress), 
using all information in our files, soliciting new information prior to 
publication of the proposed rule, as well as during two comment 
periods, from a wide variety of knowledgeable entities and individuals, 
and using additional sources of information such as peer-reviewed 
journals and other publications. We incorporated all substantial 
information we received into this final rule, including any new 
information regarding the species' status, habitat conditions, and 
threats. We believe that we did identify and point out uncertainties 
and data gaps. We had to rely on the best scientific and commercial 
data available to us, as opposed to collecting new data to fill gaps. 
We believe that we have made a sound case for why the Texas golden 
gladecress warrants listing as endangered and the Neches River rose-
mallow warrants listing as threatened under the Act. For further 
information, see our response to Comment 23.
    (50) Comment: The threat to SH 204 ROW by ``water management 
strategies'' is speculative. There are no scientific data that 
demonstrate the level of hydrological change that would impact the 
Neches River rose-mallow; the Service is speculating this threat. Also, 
the proposed rule's discussion of the plant numbers for the Neches 
River rose-mallow and the impacts of the proposed Lake Columbia project 
on this species have not been subjected to rigorous scientific analysis 
or discussion. The Service does not report on information from two of 
its published reports; specifically plant count information was missing 
from 2007. Also, in these reports, plants were determined to be 
Hibiscus hybrids; however, this was not mentioned. There is no 
explanation of why the Service did not present this readily available 
data.
    Our Response: Some degree of hydrological change has been seen at 
most of the Neches River rose-mallow sites; however, information on 
some of the private land sites is lacking. Many wetland species, 
including the Neches River rose-mallow, are adapted to highly variable 
rates of water flow, including seasonal high and low flows, and 
occasional floods and droughts. For example, the Neches River rose-
mallow likely requires high precipitation and flowing water or flood 
events to disperse seed (Warnock 1995, p. 20; Scott 1997, p. 8; Reeves 
2008, p. 3), and although the Neches River rose-mallow is adapted to 
persisting in dry conditions during portions of the year, a complete 
lack of water can diminish seed production, range expansion, and 
genetic exchange. As Niches River rose-mallow habitat is so water-
dependent, hydrological changes can have huge impacts.
    In regards to the SH 204 ROW site, the best scientific and 
commercial data available suggest that the construction of the Lake 
Columbia reservoir project will divert water downstream, thereby likely 
dewatering the site. The agencies involved with the project are still 
working on solidifying the project details, and, therefore, we do not 
know how much water will remain at this site or if future water 
management practices or decisions will allow for seasonal flooding of 
water to this site. Please reference the ``Hydrological Changes'' 
section in this rule for more information on this project and 
hydrological impacts to this and other sites.

Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule

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

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

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

Texas Golden Gladecress

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

    Habitat loss and degradation have been the primary cause of decline 
in Texas golden gladecress during the last two decades. Permanent 
removal or destruction of habitat by quarrying and pipeline 
installation projects has eradicated several populations. Other habitat 
alterations that are occurring across the species' range, with 
potential to destroy or negatively alter Texas golden gladecress's 
habitat, include construction of well pads, buildings, roads, and 
poultry production facilities, and service line improvements. A 
historic and ongoing major threat to Texas golden gladecress's habitat 
is the invasion by nonnative and native shrubs, trees, and vines, and 
other weedy species into the formerly open-sun, herbaceous, glade 
vegetation communities. Planting of pine plantations can potentially 
have negative impacts on the Texas golden gladecress if the spacing of 
planted trees puts them in close proximity to occupied outcrops, 
resulting in shading and pine leaf litter accumulations in the glade 
habitat. Grazing has been implicated as a habitat threat because it is 
often associated with the encroachment of undesirable vegetation into 
the outcrop habitat, and may lead to trampling of plants. Agricultural 
herbicide use has some potential to damage emerging Texas golden 
gladecress seedlings. Severe and extended periods of drought, 
anticipated to increase with projected changes in the climate, may 
negatively affect a given year's reproductive effort by Texas golden 
gladecress. These factors will be discussed in more detail below.
Glauconite Quarrying (Mining)
    Glauconite, often called ``blue rock'' or ``green rock,'' is used 
in San Augustine and Sabine Counties for road construction and 
maintenance by county road departments, USFS, and Louisiana Parishes 
(McGee 2011, pers. comm.). Glauconite has also been used by the oil and 
natural gas industry for roads and well pads, and demand by the oil and 
gas industry is high (McGee 2011, pers. comm.). Glauconite is also used 
as a component of fertilizer and as an animal feed additive (Godwin 
2012, pers. comm., p. 4). A number of commercial glauconite quarries or 
mines were in production by 1997, and

[[Page 56046]]

subsequent interest in its use grew because traditional pavement base 
materials historically used in this region (iron ore and limestone) 
were becoming harder to obtain and more expensive (Button and Little 
1997, p. 14). A representative of one mining company with four quarries 
in the San Augustine and Sabine County area expressed an opinion that 
their mines were sustainable for 15 to 20 years at the current level of 
demand (McGee 2011, pers. comm.). The best scientific and commercial 
information available does not allow us to make predictions about 
future demand for glauconite, and we are unable to project the level of 
future quarry development throughout the Texas golden gladecress's 
range. Selection of quarry sites can be based on different site 
qualities and the variation in the mineral composition of the Weches 
Formation across its geographic range. Selection of locations for 
glauconite quarries may target areas ``where the glauconite can be seen 
on the surface'' (outcrops), although quarries have also been dug on 
sites where the glauconite was not visible at the surface (McGee 2011, 
pers. comm.).
    TNC (2003, p. 9) noted that glauconite quarrying (mining) in glades 
destroys habitat and is a significant threat to the Texas golden 
gladecress. The majority of known habitat was excavated at three of the 
eight historical populations (Caney Creek Glade Sites 2, 6, and 8) 
between 1996 and 2011, resulting in open pits at the former habitat 
sites. The excavations removed all surface features required by the 
gladecress, as well as killing individual plants. The Service has been 
denied access to these sites; thus we cannot determine if any habitat 
or plants remain on the periphery of the excavated quarries. The last 
recorded survey of plants at Caney Creek Glade Site 2 was on March 18, 
1988, when the Texas golden gladecress plants were described as growing 
on the sloping Weches outcrop that was brush-hogged and burned in 1988. 
Using available high-altitude photography taken between 1995 and 2009, 
supplemented with aerial photography from August 2010, it appears that 
the glade was still intact as of 1995-1996, but that a much larger area 
than the original population site was excavated by 2005. As of 2010, 
the entire population site and surrounding area looks to be two large, 
side-by-side pits or ponds. Based on the total loss of habitat (surface 
and subsurface) due to the excavation, over a large portion of the 
former population site, we assume that the population was extirpated 
here.
    The last information on plant numbers and conditions at the Caney 
Creek Glade Sites 6 and 8 was collected on March 19 and April 24, 1987. 
At that time, Caney Creek Glade Site 6 was recognized as the largest 
known viable population of Texas golden gladecress. At this site, the 
Texas golden gladecress grew in a former pasture with thousands of 
fruiting plants in association with other native glade plants, 
including white bladderpod, in shallow bedrock pockets. The Caney Creek 
Glade Site 8 consisted of a very small population on a degraded Weches 
outcrop, with scattered plants in fruit. Both elements of occurrence 
appeared to be eliminated by a large, open-pit quarry in which digging 
started after 1996, with the entire area being one large pit by 2009.
    The outcrops may actually attract glauconite quarrying interests 
because the presence of an outcrop indicates that glauconite is close 
to the surface. Glauconite mining can occur throughout the range of 
Texas golden gladecress and has the potential to eradicate populations 
at sites where quarries are dug. There is no requirement for permits to 
develop a quarry, typically there is no Federal nexus, and locations of 
future quarries are unknown. Based on our review of the scientific 
information, we conclude that excavation of pits for removal of 
glauconite, and associated glauconite-quarrying activities, pose a 
threat to the Texas golden gladecress across the species' range.
Natural Gas and Oil Exploration and Production
    A principal threat to the habitat of Texas golden gladecress is the 
removal or destruction of habitat (outcrops and immediate surrounding 
land) by pipeline construction or from construction of buildings, well 
pads, or roads to access drilling sites directly over habitat. Natural 
gas pipeline installation requires trenching and clearing that can 
destroy all gladecress habitat and plants within the pipeline ROW. In 
addition to the destruction of habitat, excavation could conceivably 
alter the hydrology of Texas golden gladecress sites if the lowered 
elevation of the excavation, or conversely, the increased ground 
elevation of a well pad or other structure, diminishes the amount of 
water that can move downslope over ground or through seeps. Adversely 
affecting the amount and timing of water delivery could render outcrop 
ledges uninhabitable for the species by interfering with the seeping or 
pooling action of water on which the species depends.
    The loss of habitat and plants in the footprint of well pads and 
roads built for natural gas or oil exploration and production is a 
continuing threat because there is high potential to affect remaining 
glade habitat throughout the species' range. Numerous wells can be seen 
from SH 21 between the cities of Nacogdoches and San Augustine, with at 
least 30 wells visible along a 20-mile (32-km) stretch of this road 
(Loos 2011, pers. comm.; Rodewald 2011, pers. comm.). The materials 
brought in to construct well pads and roads can directly cover habitat 
and plants, causing partial or total loss of populations. Excavations, 
as well as construction activities, that occur upslope of Texas golden 
gladecress populations may act to impede movement of water downslope, 
thereby interfering with seeping and pooling of water needed by Texas 
golden gladecress. Concern about the extent of this threat is elevated 
due to our lack of information about potential Texas golden gladecress 
populations across the Weches glades where surveys for the species have 
not been undertaken, but where natural gas exploration and production 
is rapidly proceeding.
    The entire known distribution of Texas golden gladecress is 
underlain by the Haynesville Shale formation (also known as the 
Haynesville-Bossier), recently recognized as a major natural gas source 
for the United States. The Haynesville Shale, located at a depth 
exceeding 11,000 ft (3,353 m), straddles the Texas-Louisiana border, 
and almost 70 percent of its production is from wells located in Texas 
(Brathwaite 2009, p. 16). The Haynesville shale covers an area of 
approximately 9,000 mi\2\ (23,310 km\2\). A June 2010 map shows the 
Haynesville Shale underlying the northwestern quarter of Sabine County, 
the entire northern half of San Augustine County, and the southeastern 
third of Nacogdoches County (Haynesville Shale Map 2010). Estimates of 
the natural gas contained in this formation's reserves indicate that it 
could sustain anticipated energy needs for well beyond the next several 
decades (Hall 2009, pp. 3-7; Brathwaite 2009, p. 16). Technological 
improvements in exploration (3-dimensional seismic surveys), drilling 
(horizontal wells), and well completion and stimulation (hydrologic 
fracturing) have enhanced the productive capability of natural gas 
shales throughout the United States, including the Haynesville Shale.
    Natural gas exploration and production has been rapidly expanding 
within the Haynesville Shale, from the first significant production in 
2005, to major development of the formation in 2009 (Brathwaite 2009, 
p. 16). Drilling activity over the entire Haynesville Shale peaked 
around 2009 or 2010, when approximately 200 drilling rigs

[[Page 56047]]

were active. As of September 18, 2011, approximately 130 rigs were 
actively drilling; the slowdown is attributed to depressed natural gas 
prices (Murphy 2011a, p. 3). Even with natural gas prices down, most 
companies continue to drill one well per gas unit on the Haynesville 
Shale in order to maintain their leases (Murphy 2011a, p. 3). By 
September 2011, as many as 1,500 wells had been drilled with many more 
anticipated, along with perhaps another 10 years of active drilling on 
this formation (Murphy 2011b, pp. 2-3).
    The Texas Railroad Commission's online maps (available at https://gis2.rrc.state.tx.us/public/startit.htm) indicate that natural gas (and 
some crude oil) gathering and transmission pipelines are found 
throughout Nacogdoches County. In San Augustine County, the majority of 
existing pipelines are located in the area north of SH 21 and west of 
the town of San Augustine, an area of high glade occurrence. To the 
east of San Augustine, there are fewer pipelines, but, of those that 
are located in this area, several are large gas transmission lines. One 
of these big transmission lines lies directly adjacent to the historic 
Caney Creek Glade Site 7. Sabine County has several major interstate 
pipelines, but fewer gathering and other transmission lines than the 
other two counties, and no pipelines near the Sabine County gladecress 
site (Texas Railroad Commission 2011).
    The Texas Railroad Commission regulates the oil and natural gas 
industry in the State of Texas. The Texas Railroad Commission has 
detailed information on all existing pipelines, but the agency has no 
way to predict future routes for new pipelines or wells; they are 
limited to location data found within permit applications (Nunley 2011, 
pers. comm.). New pipelines, as well as ones for which routes are being 
determined, do not display on the Texas Railroad Commission Web site, 
so although we are aware of the impact that pipeline excavations can 
have on Texas golden gladecress, we cannot tell where future pipelines 
may affect existing populations or suitable habitat.
    Loss of Texas golden gladecress habitat and plants is inevitable if 
pipelines are routed directly through population sites. Pipeline 
installation requires clearing of a path for the pipeline, cutting a 
trench in which to lay the pipe, recovering of the trench, and 
restoring the ground's surface. Clearing pipeline pathways eliminates 
obstacles to construction (NaturalGas.Org 2011, p. 2), which may 
include the rocky outcrops supporting the Texas golden gladecress. 
Bulldozing the pipeline path likely permanently removes these rocky 
ledges and other features, along with the Texas golden gladecress 
plants and seedbed. After the pipe is put into the ground and the 
trench covered with soil, elevations are restored and the surface is 
revegetated, generally using coastal bermudagrass in this region 
(Rodewald 2011, pers. comm.). The Simpson Farms Texas golden gladecress 
population, located 6 mi (9.7 km) east of the city of Nacogdoches, was 
eliminated by a natural gas pipeline that was installed sometime 
between August 2010 and October 2011 (date of installation determined 
from comparison of successive years of aerial photography). At this 
site, the pipeline ROW was approximately 75 ft (23 m) wide, and the 
entire area formerly occupied by the Texas golden gladecress was 
covered with deposited sediment or piles of cleared brush (Cobb 2011, 
pers. comm.). Given the degree of clearing of the ROW and the adjacent 
dirt work, the known extent of habitat is now gone, and the entire 
population has likely been extirpated (Cobb 2011, pers. comm.). The 
Chapel Hill population may also be affected by future pipeline 
construction; the route for a future pipeline was being surveyed in 
October 2011 (Cobb 2011, pers. comm.). Although this pipeline does not 
directly cross the very small population site between the pasture fence 
and the road, it does lie parallel to, and just inside of, the fence 
line in a pasture where Texas golden gladecress habitat does exist 
(Singhurst 2012c, pers. comm.; Singhurst 2012f, pers. comm.).
    The current trend over most natural gas shale formations is to 
drill multiple wells, when possible, and well pad sizes can vary 
accordingly. Well pad sizes in the San Augustine County area range from 
several acres to as large as 14 ac (5.67 ha), depending on the number 
of wells (Loos 2011, pers. comm.; Allen 2011b, pers. comm.). Although 
most oil and gas companies use existing roads, occasionally the 
companies need to build new roads, and in these cases the new routes 
may go through outcrop areas. The fill for pads and roads could cover 
portions of, or potentially entire, glade sites since some of the 
glades are so small. Placement of pads or roads upslope of Texas golden 
gladecress sites may have the potential to affect downslope movement of 
water to outcrop sites (Ritter 2011b, pers. comm.).
    In summary, the remaining populations of Texas golden gladecress 
and suitable habitat are within areas that are actively being drilled 
for natural gas. Plants and habitat have been destroyed by the 
construction of pipelines. The three remaining populations as well as 
suitable habitat are at risk of being destroyed by construction of 
natural gas and oil infrastructure (pipelines, well pads, metering 
stations, and roads) that continue to be constructed throughout the 
species' range. Exploration and production of natural gas and oil is 
anticipated to continue in this area for at least the next decade. 
Texas golden gladecress and its habitat may be directly impacted by the 
construction of pipelines and other infrastructure, and indirectly by 
altering the hydrology near occupied sites and suitable habitat. Based 
on our review of the scientific information, we conclude that natural 
gas and oil development is a threat to Texas golden gladecress.
Residential and Commercial Construction
    Although residential and commercial construction was listed in the 
species' candidate assessments as a potential threat, there is no 
evidence that this type of disturbance has directly affected Texas 
golden gladecress populations. Historically, site selection for 
building homes and businesses in the town of San Augustine may have 
taken advantage of the open aspect of the glades; Leavenworth described 
the area in which he originally collected the species (vicinity of the 
town of San Augustine) as ``prairies'' (Bridges 1988, p. II-5). 
However, information about former glades in the area is lacking, as is 
documentation that the Texas golden gladecress was present where 
buildings are currently located. Neither San Augustine nor Sabine 
Counties are experiencing rapid human population growth; San Augustine 
County saw a 0.9 percent decline in population from 8,946 to 8,865 
between 2000 and 2010, while Sabine County had a modest increase of 3.5 
percent (10,469 to 10,834) (U.S. Census Bureau 2010a, b), suggesting 
that residential and associated commercial development does not 
constitute a high level of threat to habitat throughout the species' 
range. However, service improvements for existing homes and businesses, 
including installation of service lines for communications, electric 
power, water, sewer, and domestic gas are ongoing and do have the 
potential to occur in Texas golden gladecress habitat (Walker 2012, 
pers. comm., p. 1). Because water, sewer, and gas lines entail 
excavations to lay pipe, these activities could have similar 
consequences to installing natural gas and oil pipelines if the lines 
pass through an occupied outcrop. Electric power structures in this 
area are

[[Page 56048]]

generally above-ground poles and lines that may be installed, or 
maintained, in highway ROWs. Although Texas golden gladecress habitat 
and plants may potentially be impacted by pole placement, the small 
project footprint, limited to the pole installation, may mean that the 
small Texas golden gladecress sites could be avoided by moving pole 
locations a few feet to either side of an outcrop. In those cases where 
new power lines are built outside of established ROWs, Texas golden 
gladecress populations might be damaged during clearing of habitat by 
vehicles and heavy equipment traversing a glade. However, there is also 
potential that clearing of woody vegetation out of invaded glades may 
reopen them to the point that the Texas golden gladecress could show a 
positive response.
    Proliferation of poultry farms was also listed as a potential 
threat to Texas golden gladecress habitat. Building poultry production 
houses and associated facilities would cover Texas golden gladecress 
habitat in the same manner as would residential or other types of 
commercial construction. Aerial photography from November 2011 (Google 
Earth, 2011) shows 21 poultry farms within the Texas golden 
gladecress's range (the approximate zone of the Weches Formation) in 
Sabine and San Augustine Counties. Of the 21 total, 18 are located on 
the San Augustine County Weches Formation. None of the existing farms 
is adjacent to any of the known population locations, and we are unable 
to determine if any Texas golden gladecress habitat or plants were lost 
when these production facilities were built. Among the characteristics 
in east Texas that make a site desirable for poultry production are 
long, flat stretches of ground with a good, solid hardpan as opposed to 
rocky outcrops on slopes, on the tops of ridges, or in low-lying areas 
(Ritter 2012, pers. comm.), such as those occupied by the Texas golden 
gladecress. This site-selection preference means that poultry producers 
would most likely avoid Texas golden gladecress habitat. In the last 2 
years, most of the poultry farm construction has taken place in 
counties north of San Augustine and Sabine, and the only activity in 
the Weches Formation zone has been renovations to existing farms 
(Ritter 2012, pers. comm.). The construction of poultry farms is not 
considered a threat to Texas golden gladecress because poultry farm 
site selection does not appear to have significant overlap with Texas 
golden gladecress habitat.
Roads
    Two of the three extant Texas golden gladecress populations, Geneva 
and Caney Creek Glade Site 1, extend into ROWs managed by TXDOT. The 
third confirmed population at Chapel Hill is located on a small tract 
adjacent to a county road and is not considered to be in a road ROW. In 
the 1990s, a road project impacted the portion of the Caney Creek Glade 
Site 1 population that occurred in the SH ROW when Sunrise Road was 
widened and straightened (Singhurst 2012g, pers. comm.); however, not 
all plants were destroyed. Review of a 2011 list of TXDOT-planned 
projects did not show any future road improvements or expansions near 
known Texas golden gladecress population sites. Based on the best 
scientific and commercial information available, we conclude that new 
road construction or improvements to the existing roads does not pose a 
threat to the two Texas golden gladecress populations that occur within 
ROWs, or to the third population that does not.
Invasive Species
    A major stressor to the habitat of Texas golden gladecress is the 
ongoing invasion of nonnative and native shrubs, trees, and vines into 
the formerly open-sun, herbaceous, glade vegetation communities. This 
woody, weedy plant invasion is occurring on at least a portion of all 
three remaining population sites. The historic Caney Creek Glade Site 7 
appears, from 2010 aerial photography, to be almost 100 percent 
overgrown with woody vegetation.
    Glades in most parts of the United States are declining due to 
grazing, fire 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 Texas golden 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, p. 2) 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 Texas golden 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 1980s 
to be affected by an accelerated succession from open, herbaceous 
Weches outcrops to dense shrub thickets and closed canopy woodlands 
(Service) 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

[[Page 56049]]

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 (Service 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 Texas golden gladecress habitat (Service 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.
Melilotus 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 crus-galli...................  hawthorn.
Crataegus spathulata...................  hawthorn.
Prunus mexicana........................  Mexican plum.
Viburnum rufidulum (=prunifolium)......  rusty blackhaw.
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-
ft\2\ (557-m\2\) 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 Texas golden 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 Texas golden 
gladecress after its apparent absence for 10 years. This suggests that 
the Texas golden gladecress's seed bank may be able to remain viable 
over extended time periods even though the habitat is overgrown by 
woody species.
    Fire suppression is considered a threat to the continued integrity 
of the native plant communities of the Weches glades because lack of 
fire contributes to woody and weedy native and nonnative plants being 
able to more quickly overtake the open glade areas. TNC's Area 
Conservation Plan for the San Augustine Glades indicated that fire 
suppression in the Coastal Plain Carbonate Glades (another reference 
for the Weches glades) constituted a high level of threat (The Nature 
Conservancy 2003, p. 9) and that the fire frequency was ``fair to 
poor''; the ideal frequency being burns occurring every 5 to 10 years. 
For future viability and biodiversity health in the glades, the plan 
said that fire processes should be restored or simulated, where 
feasible (The Nature Conservancy 2003, p. 8), and categorized 
development and implementation of fire management and invasive species 
plans with partner landowners as a top priority conservation strategy 
(The Nature Conservancy 2003, p. 13). TNC's plan also stated that 
seasonal burns could create habitat conditions allowing establishment 
and expansion of white bladderpod populations by triggering germination 
and reducing completion from woody invasives, and referred to ``limited 
data'' indicating that burns conducted July through October (non-bloom 
period) are the most beneficial for the bladderpod. This plan also 
indicted that this is probably true for the Texas golden gladecress.
    Although information about the direct effects of prescribed burns 
on Texas golden gladecress is not available, Dr. Michael Warnock did 
conduct experimental burns at Caney Creek Glade Site 6 in the mid-1990s 
to determine the impacts on white bladderpod. His experimental burns 
did result in white bladderpod showing a positive reproductive 
response. However, Dr. Warnock did not list the Texas golden gladecress 
in his final report, and did not mention anything about its response to 
the experimental burn (Warnock 1992, entire). The TXNDD's element of 
occurrence records include descriptions of habitat conditions, 
including mention of winter burns, at a time when the Texas golden

[[Page 56050]]

gladecress was present (in fruit) at two historic Texas golden 
gladecress sites. At Caney Creek Glade Site 2, Texas golden gladecress 
was last observed in March 1988, when the site was described as being 
brush-hogged and burned that same year. In 1988, at the Caney Creek 
Glade Site 7, part of the Weches formation glade area below a shrubby 
slope was in part burned that winter (or early spring), and the Texas 
golden gladecress itself was described as being locally abundant in a 
very small area on a seepy, gravelly glade (TXNDD 2012b, pp).
    Bermudagrass, ryegrass, and bahiagrass are nonnative grasses that 
have been documented as occurring at some white bladderpod and Texas 
golden gladecress sites. Nemec (1996, p. 4) described bermudagrass as 
among the most serious invaders of white bladderpod and Texas golden 
gladecress habitat. Carr (2005, p. 4) listed ryegrass (although he 
described it as Lolium multiflorum (English rye)) as a common grass 
component at the Chapel Hill Site in spring 2005. George (1987, pp. 26-
36) found bermudagrass, bahiagrass, and perennial ryegrass at San 
Augustine County glade sites where he assessed the herbaceous 
vegetation community. Using ``importance values'' for plant species 
that were calculated by summing the relative density and the relative 
frequency of the species (with a value of 1 being highest or most dense 
and most frequent), he found bermudagrass, ryegrass, and bahiagrass to 
rank in importance as 38, 53, and 69 (respectively) of 80 species at 
site 1; while ryegrass, bermudagrass, and bahiagrass ranked as 13, 17, 
and 23 in importance (respectively) out of a total of 75 species at 
site 2. Interestingly, at site 3, which was the sole site with Texas 
golden gladecress present, only ryegrass was found; the other two 
species were absent. Some of the differences between the three sites 
(as described by George 1987, pp. 26-36) may have contributed to the 
presence of all the invasive grasses at sites 1 and 2, where they 
varied with respect to their frequency and density. Site 3 (where Texas 
golden gladecress occurred) was the rockiest and most fossiliferous of 
the three sites, with soil and a gravel-like substrate containing many 
small rocks. Sites 1 and 2 appeared to include more areas of deeper, 
more developed soil. Site 3 was the wettest in the spring and the 
driest in the summer and fall, due to rapid drying of the thin soil. 
George (1987, pp. 26-36) postulated that the thin, rocky soils of Site 
3 were probably a limiting factor that helped to explain the generally 
lower densities of most of the plants at the site.
    George (1987, pp. 26-36) also described a seasonality component to 
the vegetation growth on the Weches glades. This seasonality may help 
to keep the habitat conditions suitable for the Texas golden gladecress 
even if bermudagrass, bahiagrass, and ryegrass are present. He noted 
that the spring was dominated by a sequence of diverse annual forbs, 
and as the summer progressed, rainfall diminished, the soil dried out, 
and the flora became very sparse. The grasses exhibited large growth 
spurts in September and dominated all three sites; however, this time 
of grass dominance (summer and fall months) is the time of year when 
Texas golden gladecress is not present aboveground. Therefore, 
seasonality of growth should help to somewhat ameliorate competition 
between the grasses and the annuals on the outcrops.
    With regard to ROWs, Texas golden gladecress does extend into 
highway ROWs at several sites. Coastal bermudagrass and bahiagrass are 
included in mixtures used to re-seed ROWs in the east Texas area (Adams 
2013c, pers. comm). Bahiagrass is a deep-rooted perennial adapted to a 
wide range of soils. It spreads via stolons and rhizomes, in addition 
to being a prolific seed producer. Bahiagrass is most productive on 
sandy soils with a pH of 5.5 to 6.5 (Houck 2009, p. 1). These qualities 
would seem to contraindicate bahiagrass colonizing and persisting on 
the parts of the outcrop where Texas golden gladecress grows, since 
bahiagrass does not share an affinity for the thin, rocky, or 
nonexistent soils under the Texas golden gladecress.
    Ryegrasses grow best on fertile, well-drained soils; however, they 
can also grow on soils where conditions are too wet at certain times of 
the year to support other grasses because ryegrass is a heavy water 
user (Hall 1992, p. 1). Soil pH for optimum ryegrass production is 
between 6.0 and 7.0 (Hall 1992, p. 3), so it may be able to tolerate 
the alkalinity of the Weches outcrops. Perennial ryegrass requires a 
dormancy period of cool temperatures before the photoperiod can induce 
flowering, and it normally produces seed heads during late spring (Hall 
1992, p. 1). This timing of growth and reproduction may be offset 
enough to help to minimize competition if and when ryegrass does grow 
onto Texas golden gladecress habitat.
    Bermudagrass is a vigorous, stoloniferous grass that can rapidly 
invade cultivated land in areas of high rainfall or irrigation (Duble 
2013, p. 1). Bermudagrass has a fibrous, perennial root system with 
vigorous, deep rhizomes. Root production and dieback is reported to be 
especially high in the spring when shoot production begins. Soil 
temperatures above 65 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) (18.3 degrees 
Centigrade ([deg]C)) are required for significant growth of rhizomes, 
roots, and stolons, with the optimum soil temperature for root growth 
around 80 [deg]F (27 [deg]C) (Duble 2013, p. 2). Bermudagrass has the 
capability of surviving extreme droughts and produces seed heads under 
stress conditions (Duble 2013, p. 3). This invasive grass can grow well 
on a wide variety of soils from heavy clays to deep sand, as long as 
fertility is not limiting. It can tolerate both acid and alkaline soil 
conditions and salinities. Bermudagrass does not tolerate poorly 
drained sites like compacted soils and heavy clays (Duble 2013, p. 6). 
Some qualities of bermudagrass, like its growth and spread via stolons 
and shoot production at nodes, along with its tolerance of varying pH 
conditions, might enhance its ability to invade the Weches outcrop 
habitats, and indeed it has been noted as a significant invader at some 
outcrop sites. However, its lack of tolerance for poor drainage might 
preclude it from the portions of the outcrop favored by the Texas 
golden gladecress. Also, its soil temperature requirements for growing 
periods may offset its season of growth and reproduction from that of 
the Texas golden gladecress.
    Nonnative and native woody species, including woody shrubs, vines, 
and trees, continue to degrade Texas golden gladecress's habitat across 
the species' entire range. This threat is significant for the species 
because it is ubiquitous and has led to declines in, or disappearance 
of, Texas golden gladecress populations, along with altering the 
species' habitat. Based on our review of the scientific and commercial 
data available, we conclude that invasion of woody and weedy nonnative 
and native plants into Texas golden gladecress habitat is a threat 
across its range. We recognize the potential for bermudagrass, 
bahiagrass, and ryegrass to impact the habitat of the Texas golden 
gladecress, especially in those situations where these grasses are 
deliberately planted nearby to Texas golden gladecress populations. 
However, there are characteristics of each of the three that may help 
limit competition between these nonnative plants and the Texas golden 
gladecress, at least on those Texas golden gladecress sites that have 
sufficient outcrop rock ledge or rock face that separate the Texas 
golden gladecress

[[Page 56051]]

from the deeper soils needed by the grasses. Based on this information, 
we do not consider these specific species a threat at this time. In the 
future, if these grasses are shown to impact the Neches River rose-
mallow or Texas golden gladecress, we will work with the appropriate 
agencies and industries to address these impacts.
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; Service 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 
(Service 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 Texas golden gladecress habitat from woody plant invasion 
are detailed in the ``Invasive Species'' section.
    There is no documentation of Texas golden gladecress plants being 
lost due to trampling. Potential does exist for this to happen, for 
example, at the Geneva Site, where Texas golden 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 to the species. Grazing also 
occurs within the fenced private portions of the other two remaining 
Texas golden gladecress population sites (Caney Creek Glade 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 best 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 Texas 
golden 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 (Service 1992, p. 7). At least one 
Texas golden gladecress population was described as being lost to this 
type of land use change during the 1980s (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 Resources 
Conservation Service 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 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 moister and cooler, leading to replacement of the sun-loving 
natives by invading cool-season vegetation and exotic species (Hartman 
2005, pp. 2-4). The decomposition of pine leaf litter also facilitates 
the germination of pines as the soil deepens within the glade (Walker 
2012, pers. comm., p. 1).
    Current data do not suggest that the establishment of pine tree 
plantations is a threat to the species. However, if in close proximity 
to occupied glade openings, this may potentially cause problems for 
Texas golden gladecress. If this becomes an issue in the future, we 
will consider it in our recovery planning and implementation.
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 ROWs and in pastures. Herbicide use to maintain highway 
and county road ROWs has the potential to destroy the small 
subpopulations that exist in the TXDOT ROWs at the Geneva and Caney 
Creek Glade 1 sites. If timing of the herbicide application coincides 
with the growing and reproductive period of the year for the Texas 
golden gladecress, all individuals that are growing in the ROW might be 
extirpated if the herbicide contacts all Texas golden 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

[[Page 56052]]

(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 Natural Resources Conservation Service 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 (The Nature Conservancy 2003, pp. 30-31), it is one of 
several herbicides identified as potentially harmful to the Texas 
golden gladecress and white bladderpod if used near their habitats. 
Management recommendations include 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 
between July 1 and 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 Texas golden gladecress population sites, it is reasonable to assume 
that some areas of glade habitat are included in these treatment 
programs. Thus, although control of Macartney rose would likely benefit 
the Texas golden gladecress in the long term, application of a pre-
emergent herbicide has the potential to eliminate the Texas golden 
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[supreg] P+D that persist in 
the soil for brush control constitute a threat to Texas golden 
gladecress's emerging seedlings.
Climate Change
    Our analyses under the 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. 
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 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007a, p. 78). 
The term ``climate change'' thus refers to a change in the mean or 
variability of one or more measures of climate (for example, 
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 (Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change 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 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007a, p. 30 and Solomon 
et al. 2007, pp. 35-54, 82-85. Results of scientific analyses presented 
by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 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 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change 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 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 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 (for example, 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 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 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007a, pp. 44-45; 
Meehl et al. 2007, pp. 760-764, 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 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 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 
(for example, habitat fragmentation) (Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change 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 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007a, p. 
89; 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

[[Page 56053]]

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 [deg]F (5 [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 [deg]F (1.7 [deg]C) in spring (range of 1-6 [deg]F (0.6-
3.3 [deg]C)) and about 4 [deg]F (2.2 [deg]C) in other seasons (with 
range of 1-9 [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 1950s, and in the last 15 years there have been widespread 
droughts: in 1996, 1999-2000, 2005-2006, 2007, and 2010-2011 (Texas 
Water Resources Institute 2011, pp. 10-12). Projections are for winter 
precipitation to decrease by 5 to 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 
[deg]F (21 [deg]C) in the south to approximately 64 [deg]F (18 [deg]C) 
in the north, although extremes like 0 [deg]F (-18 [deg]C) and 110 
[deg]F (43 [deg]C) are observed occasionally. The highest reported 
eastern Texas temperature was 118 [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 cm) 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 
Caney Creek Glade Site 1 during the 1999-2000 droughts (Service 2010b, 
p. 5; Singhurst 2011a, pers. comm.). It is unknown how the Texas golden 
gladecress will respond to continued years of drought, especially when 
combined with other threats. Godwin (2012, pers. comm., p. 4) noted 
that droughts have had a major effect on the distribution of biota in 
east Texas and hypothesized that drought has contributed to isolation 
and endemism in the glade flora.
    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 
improve habitat conditions for invasive plant species and other plants 
(Service 2010b, p. 5), although, conversely, extreme drought years may 
contribute to keeping woody species from overtaking glades by making 
the shallow soil even more inhospitable to larger plants. Godwin (2012, 
pers. comm., p. 1) personally observed the drought of 2011 ``pushing 
back'' the edges of Weches glades and tiny saline prairies. 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 Texas golden 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 nonnative plants, the Texas golden gladecress will 
likely be negatively affected. Although the Texas golden 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 scientific and 
commercial data available 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.
    The best scientific and commercial data available do not provide 
reliable 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, its 
habitat, or responses of invasive species in these habitats.
Other Conservation Efforts
    Habitat conditions conducive to the Texas golden gladecress's 
persistence are being maintained at the Chapel Hill population site by 
the landowner. Texas golden gladecress was an incidental

[[Page 56054]]

beneficiary of a brush removal project done for white bladderpod at 
this site in 1995, when the private landowner, working in cooperation 
with the Service, cleared shrubby overgrowth from his small tract of 
land. As a result of this glade being reopened, the Texas golden 
gladecress reappeared after a 10-year absence (Nemec 1996, p. 5). This 
success demonstrated that removal of woody and weedy invaders may help 
the Texas golden gladecress seedbed to germinate and the plant to 
emerge. Because this site experienced rapid reinvasion of shrubs, 
repeated maintenance was required to keep the site open, and the 
landowner has voluntarily continued to mow or bushhog at least once per 
year (Singhurst 2012f, pers. comm.). As a result, the Texas golden 
gladecress and bladderpod were still seen to occupy this site as 
recently as February 2012 (Singhurst 2012f, pers. comm.).
    Within the past several years, the Service's Partners for Fish and 
Wildlife Program has funded a habitat restoration project involving 
brush clearing and planting of white bladderpod in a glade at a 
privately owned tract in San Augustine County. It was also hoped that 
Texas golden gladecress would benefit from this project, but the 
species has not been detected at the site to date.
    A past conservation effort proved that there is some potential to 
reintroduce or create new populations of Texas golden gladecress. The 
species was successfully introduced via seed into apparently 
appropriate habitat in Nacogdoches County at a site located 
approximately 30 mi (48 km) west of its historic range in the late 
1980s, where it continued to grow until 2011, when a pipeline 
excavation eliminated the population. The success of this introduction 
effort was a positive indication of possibilities to augment existing 
population sites or introduce Texas golden gladecress into other 
currently unoccupied but suitable habitat sites to form new 
populations.
    In addition to habitat projects, the Service funded several 
projects with TNC, including one that provided for 3 years of status 
surveys for Texas golden gladecress and white bladderpod. These 
surveys, completed in 2006, were the sole source of population numbers 
for these species for several years. TNC also attempted to identify 
appropriate glade habitats in which Texas golden gladecress and white 
bladderpod might be found using GIS data (aerial, geology, and 
hydrology sources) (Turner 2000 pers. comm.), but follow-up site visits 
showed little Weches habitat and no new Texas golden gladecress 
populations at what appeared to be suitable sites (Turner 2003, p. 4, 
in Service 2010a). In 2001, TNC collected Texas golden gladecress seeds 
from four sites for cultivation, research, and long-term storage, and 
as seed sources for reintroduction work. The seeds were given to Mercer 
Arboretum, where they have been in long-term storage, as well as being 
used for some early germination and cultivation work. 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 1980s, 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 threat that has the most significant impacts to Texas golden 
gladecres populations is 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-1990s and 2011. The threats from quarry development are likely 
to continue, as glauconite is currently in demand for road bed and well 
pad construction, as well as for use in fertilizer and as an animal 
feed additive. For the past several years, energy exploration and 
production, especially natural gas, has been active due to development 
of the natural-gas-bearing Haynesville Shale, which underlies the 
entire range of Texas golden gladecress. For the four remaining 
populations, these activities pose ongoing threats because we cannot 
predict whether new pipelines, well pads, roads, or quarries are 
planned for the areas where the populations occur. The populations of 
Texas golden gladecress are found mainly on privately owned land where 
no level of protection for the plants is guaranteed. Portions of two 
extant populations extend into SH ROWs where TXDOT has the ability to 
provide some protections but only for those few plants that are on the 
ROW. Much of the species' potential habitat throughout its range occurs 
on private lands that have not been surveyed; therefore, the current 
level of threats across these lands cannot be assessed. The excavation 
activities associated with surface quarrying of glauconite and oil and 
gas development are threats that have significant impacts to the known 
extant populations and associated habitats of the gladecress, both now 
and in the future.
    We have also determined that the damage to Texas golden gladecress 
plants and outcrop habitat that is associated with excavations may 
occur when pipelines for water, sewer lines, gas connections to homes, 
and communication lines are installed. New power lines that are built 
outside of established ROWs also have potential to damage Texas golden 
gladecress populations and habitat if land-clearing activity and heavy 
equipment directly cross occupied outcrops. Although we acknowledge 
that these activities constitute potential threats to the species and 
its habitat, we do not know where service improvements are planned 
within the range of the species or the number of these types of 
projects that are planned for the future.
    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 Texas golden gladecress if 
applied to or persisting in the soil during the species' period of 
growth, from late fall through early summer.
    A recent, ongoing trend in local land use is the conversion of open 
pasture to pine plantations. 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 Texas golden gladecress's habitat. However, long-term drought has 
negatively affected and will likely continue to negatively affect the 
reproduction and germination of Texas golden gladecress seeds.

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

    Limited collection of Texas golden 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. TNC collected seed at four sites in 
2001, and contributed these seed

[[Page 56055]]

collections to Mercer Arboretum, a participating institution in the 
Center for Plant Conservation, in 2002 (Tiller 2013, pers. comm., p. 
1). Mercer maintained some in long-term storage and planted 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 constitutes 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 currently a threat to the species, nor do we expect it to become 
a threat in the future.

C. Disease or Predation

    Our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information regarding disease in Texas golden gladecress does not 
indicate that disease or predation are issues for this species. There 
is no information regarding predation by wildlife on the species. 
Grazing is ongoing across the range of the Texas golden gladecress and 
occurs on portions of all extant population sites; however, there is no 
information to document that cattle eat Texas golden gladecress. No 
studies have been conducted to investigate the effect of grazing or 
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 currently threats to the species, nor 
do we expect disease or predation to become a threat in 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 Texas golden gladecress.
    The greatest threats to the Texas golden 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; installation of 
service lines; and potentially herbicide applications for purposes of 
controlling the invasive Macartney rose.
    Existing State and Federal regulations that might help conserve 
rare species on SH 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 Texas golden 
gladecress. Of the two Texas golden gladecress populations that occur 
in ROWs, the federally listed white bladderpod is only found at one 
site (Caney Creek Glade Site 1). Although the Texas golden gladecress 
plants at the Caney Creek Glade Site 1 do extend into the TXDOT-
maintained ROW, the majority of the plants are on the adjacent private 
land, so any protections offered by the State would apply to very few 
of the plants. Likewise, no existing regulations protect the species on 
privately owned land, where most of the remnant Texas golden gladecress 
is found.
    Currently, Texas golden gladecress is not protected by State or 
Federal laws. All of the populations occur on private property even 
though portions of those populations extend onto SH ROWs; the ROW 
portions of these populations are miniscule. As such, the existing 
regulatory mechanisms are inadequate 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 Texas golden gladecress's seed dispersal patterns or 
distances, we do know that the Texas golden gladecress's habitat is 
exceedingly fragmented, with fewer and smaller known populations than 
the bladderpod, and farther distances between populations. This makes 
the prospects for recolonization after a potential loss of a Texas 
golden 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 Texas golden 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 Texas 
golden gladecress increases each population's vulnerability to the 
threats that have significant impacts described under 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 Texas golden 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

[[Page 56056]]

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 Texas golden 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 risk of extinction, 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, we do not know whether these 
remaining populations are peripheral to what may have been a 
historically larger range. Although we might infer inbreeding is 
occurring in gladecress based on the species' isolated occurrences and 
ability to self-fertilize, the best scientific and commercial data 
available do not describe 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 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 increase 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 
under Factor A, constitutes a threat to the species and greatly 
exacerbates other the threats we identify above for this species.
Conservation Efforts To Reduce Other Natural or Manmade Factors 
Affecting Its Continued Existence
    We have several examples of voluntary conservation efforts that are 
currently underway, or which took place in the past, that directly, or 
indirectly, assist the Texas golden gladecress by addressing the 
impacts of habitat loss and degradation, or low population and 
individual plant numbers. See description under the Factor A analysis, 
above.

Cumulative Effects From Factors A Through E

    As described above under Factor E, Texas golden gladecress's small 
population size and the small number of extant populations increase 
each population's vulnerability to the significant threats described 
under Factor A. Small numbers of plants, confined to very small areas, 
can be extirpated by actions such as installation of pipelines; 
excavation of mines; or construction of well pads, roads, or other 
types of construction. The remaining Texas golden gladecress 
populations are so small that they can fall completely within the 
footprint of one well pad, or even within the width of a pipeline 
excavation. This has been the case for four of the eight Texas golden 
gladecress populations ever documented; three of these were extirpated 
due to quarry excavation between the late 1980s and the mid-1990s. The 
continued threat of extirpation of populations to excavation projects 
continues, as evidenced by the loss of the fourth population (the 
introduced population) to a pipeline installation as recently as 2011.
    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. The high incidence of 
Macartney rose invasion within the Texas golden gladecress's range 
could increase the species' likelihood of exposure to herbicides 
associated with Macartney rose-control projects.
    The overgrowth of many glade habitats by woody shrubs, particularly 
Macartney rose and Chinese privet, within the range of Texas golden 
gladecress also puts these few small populations at an increased risk 
of genetic isolation if the plant is forced into dormancy by hostile 
conditions on the glade. Sustained drought could also 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 Texas golden gladecress population.
    The combined effects of drought, impacts from oil and gas 
development or other excavations, herbicide treatment, shading, and 
competition place the remaining three populations at a high extinction 
risk, and this is exacerbated by their small population size and very 
restricted geographic distribution.

Determination

Standard for Review

    Section 4 of the Act, 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(b)(1)(A), the Secretary is to make endangered or threatened 
determinations required by subsection 4(a)(1) solely on the basis of 
the best scientific and commercial data available to her after 
conducting a review of the status of the species and after taking into 
account conservation efforts by States or foreign nations. The 
standards for determining whether a species is endangered or threatened 
are provided in section 3 of the Act. An endangered species is any 
species that is ``in danger of extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range.'' A threatened species is any species 
that is ``likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable 
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.'' Per 
section 4(a)(1) of the Act, in reviewing the status of the species to 
determine if it meets the definition of endangered or threatened, we 
determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened 
species because

[[Page 56057]]

of 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 Status Determination

    Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
data, we conclude that the Texas golden gladecress is currently in 
danger of extinction throughout all of its range and, therefore, meets 
the definition of an endangered species. This finding, explained below, 
is based on our conclusions that the severity of threats is high and 
occurs throughout the range of the species. The Texas golden gladecress 
has demonstrated some ability to survive certain events (dozing and 
drought) likely due to persistent seed bank and some ability to 
tolerate small population sizes likely due to self-fertilization. 
However, it shows little to no ability to survive or tolerate other 
impacts (quarry mining and pipelines). Further, although somewhat able 
to persist in the face of past naturally occurring stochastic events, 
the species is currently highly vulnerable due to the limited 
distribution of populations across its range and to the specific 
habitat requirements needed to support the species. We find that the 
Texas golden gladecress is at an elevated risk of extinction now, and 
there is no information to suggest that the species' status will 
improve without significant conservation intervention. We, therefore, 
find that the Texas golden gladecress meets the definition of an 
endangered species under the Act.
    On the basis of our biological review documented in this final rule 
to list the Texas golden gladecress, we find the species is vulnerable 
to population extirpations due to its specialized habitat requirements; 
restricted geographic distribution; moisture regime requirements; 
small, isolated populations; and few remaining populations (Factors A 
and E). The species is endemic to Weches glade habitat, which is 
scattered or patchy across the landscape. Its historic range does not 
extend farther 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 (5-km-wide) band around 
SH 21. 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 (Caney Creek Glade Site 
1), central (Chapel Hill), and southern (Geneva) populations. All three 
extant populations are small in terms of areal extent and number of 
individual plants. The remaining three sites cover less than 1.2 ac 
(0.5 ha). The loss of any of the known populations further reduces the 
ability of the species as a whole to withstand additional threats.
    The remaining small, isolated Texas golden gladecress populations 
are particularly susceptible to extirpation from habitat loss and 
degradation (Factor A). The main sources of habitat loss and 
degradation include construction of glauconite mines, construction of 
pipelines, and invasive woody plants. Glauconite mines and pipelines 
remove the habitat and the overlying Texas golden gladecress plants, 
which eliminates the entire glade or alters hydrology of glades nearby; 
allow the invasion of the open, sunny glade habitats by native and 
nonnative woody and weedy species; and can prompt the planting of pine 
trees in close proximity to occupied glades, which reduces sunlight and 
increases leaf litter. Drought decreases seed production. Successive 
years of drought could lead to further declines in the numbers of 
plants, or perhaps total loss of Texas golden gladecress populations, 
if no growth or reproduction occurs over this extended time period, a 
circumstance that could be exacerbated by climate change.
    In addition to the individual sources of habitat loss and 
degradation under Factor A, and small, isolated populations under 
Factor E, the cumulative effects of the multiple stressors are acting 
on populations such that the effects on the Texas golden gladecress, as 
well as the immediacy of these threats, are significant throughout the 
species' entire current range. The small and limited number of 
remaining populations act in concert with the threats under Factor A 
and E. These factors pose imminent threats to the species because they 
are ongoing. The current conditions of small and isolated populations 
reduce the ability of any given Texas golden gladecress population to 
endure such adverse events, and natural recolonization following local 
extirpations is considered unlikely in most cases.
    We evaluated whether the Texas golden gladecress is in danger of 
extinction now (i.e., an endangered species) or is likely to become in 
danger of extinction in the foreseeable future (i.e., a threatened 
species). The foreseeable future refers to the extent to which the 
Secretary of the Interior can reasonably rely on predictions about the 
future in making determinations about the future conservation status of 
the species. A key statutory difference between an endangered species 
and a threatened species is the timing of when a species may be in 
danger of extinction either now (endangered species) or in the 
foreseeable future (threatened species).
    Because of the fact-specific nature of listing determinations, 
there is no single metric for determining if a species is ``in danger 
of extinction'' now. In the case of the Texas golden gladecress, the 
best available information indicates that, while a major range 
reduction (that is the overall geographic extent of the species' 
occurrences) has not happened, habitat destruction has resulted in 
significant loss of populations and reductions in total numbers of 
individuals. These losses are ongoing, as at least one population was 
lost due to a pipeline installation within the last 3 years and three 
populations were lost between 1994 and 2011 due to quarry mining. 
Because the types of human activities that have contributed to the 
losses of Texas golden gladecress populations are continuing to occur 
across the species' range, we anticipate that future losses of the 
remaining populations are likely to occur. Additionally, degradation of 
the species' habitat across its entire range is continuing as woody and 
weedy plants overrun glade sites. Further, an increase in the number 
and duration of drought events is projected to continue. Without 
substantial conservation efforts, this trend of population loss is 
expected to continue and result in an elevated risk of extinction of 
the species. The narrow endemism of the species, with its small 
geographic range, increases the risk for the species that stochastic 
events (e.g., drought) will affect all known extant populations, 
putting the Texas golden gladecress at a high risk of extinction.
    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. The threats to the survival of this 
species occur throughout its range and are not restricted to any 
particular significant portion of its range. Accordingly, our 
assessments and determinations apply to this species throughout its 
entire range.
    In conclusion, as described above, the Texas golden gladecress has 
experienced significant reductions in population numbers (based on 
habitat loss and degradation). The Texas golden gladecress is 
especially vulnerable to impacts due to its life history and

[[Page 56058]]

ecology. The species is also subject to significant current and ongoing 
threats. After a review of the best available scientific information as 
it relates to the status of the species and the five listing factors, 
we find the Texas golden gladecress is in danger of extinction now. 
Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and commercial 
information, we are listing the Texas golden gladecress as an 
endangered species, in accordance with section 3(6) of the Act. We find 
that a threatened species status is not appropriate for the Texas 
golden gladecress because the threats to the species are occurring now 
and are expected to continue into the future such that overall risk of 
extinction is high at this time.

Neches River Rose-mallow

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

    Neches River rose-mallow is a nonwoody, flowering perennial found 
within seasonally or regularly inundated sloughs, oxbows, terraces, 
sand bars, and bottomlands. The Neches River rose-mallow is endemic to 
relatively open habitat with hydric alluvial soils (water-saturated 
soils). Sites are found within the Neches, Sabine, and Angelina River 
basins and the Mud and Tantabogue Creek basins of five counties within 
east Texas.
Nonnative Species
    Nonnative plant species are a constant threat to native flora 
throughout the Gulf coast prairies of Texas and Louisiana (McCormick 
2005, p. 23). A primary threat to the Neches River rose-mallow is the 
ongoing encroachment of nonnative and native woody species into its 
generally open, intermittent or perennial wetlands. We considered the 
potential threat from three nonnative species, Chinese tallow, coastal 
bermudagrass, and bahiagrass (Miller 2011, pers. comm.). Based on the 
best scientific and commercial data available, the Chinese tallow is an 
ongoing threat to the Neches River rose-mallow, but coastal 
bermudagrass and bahiagrass are not threats at this time.
    Chinese tallow was introduced to the United States in the 1700s 
from China (McCormick 2005, pp. 7, 8). With the ability to reproduce 
quickly, reach reproductive maturity in as little as 3 years, and 
remain reproductively mature for at least 60 years (United States 
Geological Survey (USGS), 2000, p. 2) to 100 years (Gan et al. 2009, p. 
1346), Chinese tallow can produce 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, and both flooding and drought-stricken habitats (USGS 2000, p. 
1). These features allow Chinese tallow to dominate certain habitats. 
Butterfield et al. (2004, p. 338) also found that Chinese tallow grew 
faster than native species found within the Neches River rose-mallow 
habitat, such as loblolly pine, water tupelo (Nyssa aquatica), blackgum 
(N. sylvatica), and sweetgum, which occur in both perennially and 
intermittently wet habitats. Without management, the Chinese tallow has 
the ability to shade out, out-grow, and limit water and nutrient 
absorption to Neches River rose-mallow and its native vegetative 
associated species.
    While there are methods to control Chinese tallow, these methods 
are labor intensive, expensive, and limited in their effectiveness. 
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 Neches River 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 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for National Forests and 
Grasslands in Texas (specific to the streamside Management Area 4 where 
the Neches rose-mallow occurs) 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 feet (30.5 m) of the Neches River 
rose-mallow (United States Department of Agriculture 1996, p. 154). 
Despite the available management actions, Chinese tallow remains at all 
USFS sites. Current mowing activities along ROWs may abate some growth 
of Chinese tallow, but management actions on these sites should also be 
evaluated for their effectiveness. Chemical methods are not being used 
to control Chinese tallow.
    The invasion from nonnative Chinese tallow tree has historically 
been a threat to the Neches River rose-mallow and continues to be a 
threat. Chinese tallow occurs at all Neches River rose-mallow sites 
(Miller 2011, pers. comm.) at varying densities and was found to be 
most prevalent at SH 94 and compartment 16, Davy Crockett NF, 
respectively (Walker 2012, p. 2). Without active or effective 
management, Chinese tallow can reproduce quickly, out-shading Neches 
River rose-mallow and other native woody vegetation and limiting its 
water and nutrient absorption. Only select sites are being actively 
managed for Chinese tallow, but the species has not been successfully 
eradicated at any of the sites. This threat has led to declines at all 
Neches River rose-mallow sites. Therefore, based on the best scientific 
and commercial data available on this invasive, we conclude that 
invasion from Chinese tallow is a threat across the species' range.
    Coastal bermudagrass is not typically found within the wetland 
habitats that the Neches River rose-mallow prefers, but three sites 
have persisting stands of coastal bermudagrass: The Texas Land 
Conservancy site, SH 204 ROW (Walker 2012, pers. comm.), and SH 94 or 
Boggy Slough (Allen 2011a, pers. comm.). Site visits to east Texas that 
included these three sites in August 2012, did not exhibit reduced 
numbers of Neches River rose-mallow due to coastal bermudagrass. 
Bahiagrass has not been found at any Neches River rose-mallow sites.
    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), much like the conditions of Neches River rose-mallow habitat. 
In drier 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 by planting sprigs (rhizomes and 
stolons) (Stichler and Bade 2012, p. 1); however once established, 
coastal bermudagrass tends to produce dense monocultures where native 
species cannot persist. A lack of management, including mowing, could 
allow coastal bermudagrass to monopolize Neches River rose-mallow 
habitats such that the bermudagrass would out-compete the rose-mallow 
for water and nutrients and could out-shade the Neches River rose-
mallow. Along ROWs, coastal bermudagrass and bahiagrass are often 
included in mixtures to re-seed ROWs in east Texas (Adams 2013c, pers. 
comm.). The wetter, low-lying areas of the ROW where Neches River rose-
mallow exists are not generally planted with coastal bermudagrass. 
TXDOT also mows along

[[Page 56059]]

ROWs, potentially diminishing any possible encroachment as coastal 
bermudagrass and bahiagrass have not been observed to cause declines in 
any Neches River rose-mallow population.
    The threat from coastal bermudagrass and bahiagrass can have 
potential impacts to native plants. However, only three sites have 
coastal bermudagrass, and bahiagrass is not present at any of the 
sites. It does not appear that Neches River rose-mallow has been 
negatively impacted by either species as of yet or will likely be 
impacted in the near future. Therefore, based on the best scientific 
and commercial data available on coastal bermudagrass and bahiagrass, 
and the lack of any observed impacts to the Neches River rose-mallow, 
we conclude that they are not threats to the Neches River rose-mallow 
across its range.
Native Species
    Historical and current encroachment from native species has been 
observed in Neches River rose-mallow habitat. Two species, sweetgum and 
green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), are native, deciduous trees of east 
Texas that have been found at all Neches River rose-mallow sites 
(Miller 2011, pers. comm.). Four Neches River rose-mallow populations 
monitored in 2011 were overgrown with sweetgum and green ash (Miller 
2011, pers. comm.; TXNDD 2012a, pp. 1-11, 20-28). About 36 percent (4 
of the 11) of the Neches River rose-mallow's populations are impacted 
by competition and shading from native sweetgum and green ash trees.
    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 partial to open 
canopies that the Neches River rose-mallow needs. In the absence of 
other competing species, sweetgum and green ash can attain large sizes 
(50-100 feet (15-30 m)) (Dickerson 2002, p. 1) and can reduce the open 
canopy (Kirkman 1995, pp. 12, 15), thereby shading out Neches River 
rose-mallow.
    Historically, natural fires generally occurred every 1 to 3 years 
in east Texas (Landers et al. 1990, p. 136; Landers 1991, p. 73) and 
controlled both native and nonnative species. Naturally occurring 
wildfires or prescribed fires can be used as management tools to limit 
the abundance of these native tree species. Two of the four sites were 
on ROWs, and prescribed burning is not a widely accepted method of ROW 
maintenance. On the other two sites, prescribed burning had not been 
implemented. The TXDOT mows these ROW sites, but mowing does not appear 
to be an effective management tool because these sites have both 
historic and current observations of native species encroachment.
    Four of the 11 sites are impacted by native species, the current 
management techniques are not adequate for control of native species, 
and effective techniques need to be investigated. Therefore, based on 
the best scientific and commercial data available, the effects of 
native encroachment by these species pose an ongoing threat to the 
Neches River rose-mallow.
Hydrological Changes
    Habitat where Neches River rose-mallow is found includes both 
intermittent and perennial wetlands along oxbows, sloughs, terraces, 
sand bars, and other low-lying areas in habitats with minimal standing 
water. Wetlands are ecological communities with hydric (flooded or 
saturated) soils. Many wetland species, including the Neches River 
rose-mallow, are adapted to highly variable rates of water flow, 
including seasonal high and low flows, and occasional floods and 
droughts. For example, the Neches River rose-mallow likely requires 
high precipitation and flowing water or flood events to disperse seed 
(Warnock 1995, p. 20; Scott 1997, p. 8; Reeves 2008, p. 3), and 
although the Neches River rose-mallow is adapted to persisting in dry 
conditions during portions of the year, a complete lack of water can 
diminish seed production, range expansion, and genetic exchange. As 
Neches River rose-mallow habitat is so water-dependent, hydrological 
changes can have huge impacts. Some degree of hydrological change has 
been seen at most of the Neches River rose-mallow sites; however, 
information on some of the private land sites is lacking.
    At the Boggy Slough site, which is connected to the SH 94 site, 
natural shifts of river and creek beds have left meandering scars and 
remnant oxbows. However, several levees upstream and the creation of a 
duck hunting pond on this site have changed the natural landscape and 
flow patterns, thereby converting seasonally inundated wetlands to 
permanently flooded wetlands (Miller 2011, pers. comm.). Beaver 
activity, such as selective cutting and damage to certain tree species, 
was evident at the Boggy Slough site, but the Neches River rose-mallow 
did not show impacts.
    On another private land site, The Texas Land Conservancy site 
(referred to as the Lovelady site in Table 4, above), Neches River 
rose-mallow plants were once observed lining the perimeter of a 
flatwoods pond. However, after 2003, when a stock pond was constructed 
(TXNDD 2012a, p. 18) in what was likely part of an overflow channel 
from Tantabogue Creek, the natural surface hydrology was altered by 
retaining overflow, preventing it from draining south to the site 
containing Neches River rose-mallow plants. The Texas Land Conservancy 
was considered a robust population; however, in 2011, the Service and 
TPWD botanists only observed 539 Neches River rose-mallow stems, most 
of which were in relatively poor condition (Miller 2011, pers. comm.).
    All four Davy Crockett NF sites (compartments 55, 16, 11, and 20) 
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.). Compartment 16 had altered hydrological changes. In 2000, when 
the Neches River rose-mallow was introduced into a wetland on this 
compartment, 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). Plant numbers decreased from 450 to 43 plants. It 
is unclear if this decrease in plants was due directly to the loss of 
the beaver dam; this needs further research. The pine-oak forest on 
adjacent private land west of compartment 55 helps regulate the amount, 
timing, and possibly the rate of water flow into the compartment. 
Therefore, any alteration of the pine forest, through tree removal 
projects or other habitat-altering activities, could alter key 
hydrological characteristics of this compartment. However, the 
likelihood of tree removal projects or habitat alteration activities on 
adjacent lands is unknown but likely minimal.
    Water development and construction projects could also result in 
the complete loss or inundation of water at sites, threatening the 
Neches River rose-mallow. 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), 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

[[Page 56060]]

approximately 195,500 acre-feet (ac-ft) (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 (1,105 mcm) of water would be 
diverted from the downstream flow of Mud Creek (USACE 2010, p. 1-1).
    According to the most current project plans available in the draft 
environmental impact statement (EIS), a habitat evaluation procedures 
analysis (a broad habitat-based approach to assess environmental 
impacts of proposed water and land resource development projects) 
stated that it was possible for the Neches River rose-mallow to be in 
the permit area, if habitat exists; however, the analysis did not 
document any Neches River rose-mallow in the permitted project area 
(Walker 2011, pers. comm.; USACE 2010, p. 4-154). The ``Permitted 
Project Area'' includes the footprint of the normal conservation pool 
of the reservoir below a certain elevation and the limits of 
construction in the vicinity of the dam, or a total of approximately 
10,655 acres. The ``Downstream Impacts Area'' was also analyzed in the 
EIS. This area included the existing Mud Creek 100-year floodplain for 
a distance of approximately 16 miles from below the dam site to the 
confluence with the Angelina River (USACE 2010, p. 1-4). The extant 
Neches River rose-mallow population found at the intersection of SH 204 
ROW and Mud Creek is within the downstream portion of the project that 
was analyzed. The SH 204 ROW site is a perennial wetland where plants 
generally remain inundated year round; therefore, a change in the water 
level at this site could make it unsuitable for Neches River rose-
mallow or could restrict potential seed dispersal mechanisms. Drought 
conditions could also exacerbate the potential threats from this 
project, and the reduced downstream water flows could completely 
extirpate the SH 204 ROW site (USACE 2010, p. 4-154; Heger 2012, pers. 
comm.).
    Using the best scientific and commercial data available, we 
anticipate that the construction of the Lake Columbia reservoir project 
will divert water downstream, thereby likely dewatering the SH 204 ROW 
site. The agencies involved with the project are still working on 
solidifying the project details, and, therefore, we do not know how 
much water will remain at this site or if future water management 
practices or decisions will allow for seasonal flooding of water to 
this site.
    Optimal habitat conditions for Neches River rose-mallow include 
intermittent or perennial wetlands that can be variable throughout the 
year, often becoming surficially dry during the summer and wet during 
the winter, perhaps being exposed to water year-round. However, 
hydrological changes that result in the complete loss or inundation of 
water at the site threaten the Neches River rose-mallow. Neches River 
rose-mallow, despite its name, is not found in deeper waters, unlike 
other Hibiscus species, and the Neches River rose-mallow is thought to 
need water at some point of its life cycle for seed dispersal. A 
complete loss of water at any or all of the sites could restrict the 
exchange of genetic material between and among sites, thereby 
compromising the species' genetic integrity.
    Although the severity of impacts from beaver dams to the Neches 
River rose-mallow could be high, the level of exposure to this stressor 
is low. Consequently, we do not consider beaver dams a threat at this 
time. However, the severity of altered hydrology as a whole is high and 
the exposure of this threat is present throughout the species' range. 
Consequently, we have determined that altered hydrology is a threat now 
and will continue to be a threat in the near-future.
Upgrades and Construction for ROWs, Roads, Bridges, and Other 
Structures
    Right-of-way populations are vulnerable to bridge and road 
expansion, new road construction, and upgrade projects. These 
activities could impact the sites' hydrology, soil stability, wetland 
and riparian vegetation, and water quality. Hydrological changes, 
erosion, and changes in the associated native vegetation due to ROW and 
road upgrades and construction projects are threats to the species (as 
described in detail in the ``Nonnative Species,'' ``Native Species,'' 
and ``Hydrological Changes'' sections, above). We do not have 
information on how sedimentation and changes in water quality could 
impact Neches River rose-mallow; however, increased siltation within 
the water column is the major pollutant of wetlands in the United 
States (Baker 1992; USEPA 1995).
    In 2005, a proposed bridge replacement on SH 230 ROW would have 
altered approximately 4.91 ac (2 ha) of Neches River rose-mallow 
habitat south of the ROW and 0.07 ac (0.03 ha) north of the ROW (Adams 
2005, p. 1), but the TXDOT implemented avoidance measures. Bridge 
replacement and road expansion projects are continuing along SH 94 ROW, 
but as of 2011, had not progressed into Neches River rose-mallow 
habitats (Adams 2011c, pers. comm.). For this project, TXDOT is using 
temporary culverts and silt fencing to reduce sedimentation, and the 
Neches River rose-mallow site has been fenced off to prevent access. 
Regardless of these minimization techniques, sedimentation was evident 
along SH 94 ROW (Walker 2012, p. 2).
    Potential road projects are mainly restricted to ROW easements and 
may potentially impact three of the 11 extant populations. Roadwork 
along SH 230 is occurring, and based on communication with the TXDOT, 
there will likely be only one project in road ROWs within the Neches 
River rose-mallow sites. These activities are currently being 
implemented or will be in the near future. As a result, the impacts to 
Neches River rose-mallow could be high, as an entire population could 
be removed as a result of these activities. Consequently, we conclude 
that SH ROW maintenance, bridge maintenance, and other structural 
projects are a threat to Neches River rose-mallow populations now and 
will continue to be a threat into the future.
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 Neches River rose-mallow population on private property south 
of SH 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 Neches River rose-mallow 
populations have shown evidence of habitat-clearing activities to 
prepare land for harvesting trees, including: Adjacent land south of 
the Davy Crockett NF compartment 55, Houston County; an extirpated site 
located south of the extant Lovelady site, Houston County; and the 
privately owned site at Champion, Trinity County.
    Although silviculture impacts have occurred in the past, the 
likelihood that silviculture activities (including land-clearing 
activities and actual planting of trees) will occur in the near future 
is very low on the occupied units, including the three ROW sites and on 
the four USFS sites. In addition, the wetland habitat does not 
necessarily exclude silviculture from occurring on sites, but wetlands 
are not usually considered the best sites for pine planting. Therefore, 
we conclude that silviculture activities are currently not a threat to 
the Neches River rose-mallow.

[[Page 56061]]

Herbicide Use
    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). There 
have been several instances where herbicide impacts to Neches River 
rose-mallow plants on ROWs and on privately owned lands have been 
documented. Neches River rose-mallow populations may also be 
potentially impacted by herbicides applied to pine plantations that 
drift into the Neches River rose-mallow habitat. Normal rainfall and 
flood events can unintentionally disperse herbicides downstream, 
impacting individual plants or whole populations, depending on the 
nature of the herbicide.
    Three subpopulations in Trinity County along SH 230 experienced 
impacts from herbicide spraying. One subpopulation with approximately 
50 plants, on private property south of SH 230, was extirpated by 
herbicide use (Service 2010b, p. 7). Herbicide drift at a second 
subpopulation along SH 230 (Gordon 2009, pp. 3-4) caused the ROW 
population to decline from 14 plants in 1999 (Poole 2001, p. 2) to zero 
plants in 2002 (Miller 2011, pers. comm.). Herbicide damage was evident 
at a third subpopulation along SH 230 ROW, and could have been the 
result of herbicide use by the private landowner south of SH 230 (what 
is now planted in pine), but this has not been confirmed. In 2012, a 
graduate student from Stephen F. Austin State University noted Neches 
River rose-mallow at this site, but this needs to be confirmed.
    The TXDOT used herbicides to remove woody vegetation from ROWs in 
the past (Miller 2005, pers. comm., in Service 2006, p. 7; Adams 2011c, 
pers. comm.), but mechanical clearing methods have largely replaced the 
use of herbicides in these ROW areas. Impacts from herbicide 
applications to Neches River rose-mallow have not been documented at 
any of the four USFS compartments. The USFS Revised Land and Resource 
Management Plan for National Forests and Grasslands in Texas restricts 
the use of nonaquatic herbicides unless hand-applied (United States 
Department of Agriculture 1996, p. 153).
    Exposure to herbicides, in conjunction with silviculture 
activities, is a threat to the Neches River rose-mallow, as it has 
impacted seven of the 11 populations (64 percent). While the majority 
of Neches River rose-mallow populations are on State or Federal land, 
all are adjacent to private lands. Even though the State and the USFS 
do not actively use herbicides, private landowners do. Consequently, 
herbicide overspray from private land could impact all existing Neches 
River rose-mallow populations. The severity of herbicide use effects to 
the Neches River rose-mallow, in combination with silviculture 
practices, is high, as seven of the 11 populations have been impacted 
by these activities. These activities are current and ongoing threats. 
Consequently, exposure to herbicides is a current and near future 
threat to the Neches River rose-mallow.
Trampling and Herbivory by Feral Hogs 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 1930s (Isle 
and Hellgren 1995, p. 793). While these omnivores dig in the soil in 
search of roots, tubers, and invertebrates, they can inadvertently 
cause damage to other food resources and habitat. Feral hogs forage by 
turning over soil with their snouts, creating mounds and depressions 
(Arrington et al. 1999, p. 535). Hogs transition from foraging in oak 
stands during winter months, to foraging in swamp and marsh edges 
during the summer months 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 to 8 months (Wood and Barrett 1979, p. 242), 
and have large litter sizes. However, uprooting of Neches River rose-
mallow has not been observed (Creech 2011a, pers. comm.; Miller 2011, 
pers. comm.).
    There are both historic and current records of damage to Neches 
River rose-mallow habitat from feral hogs. Damage of habitat by feral 
hogs has historically been recorded at Mill Creek Gardens (Creech 
2011a, pers. comm.; Miller 2011, pers. comm.) and on all four Davy 
Crockett NF sites. Until 2012, only tracks and damage to habitat have 
been the most noted type of destruction; however, current damage to 
Neches River rose-mallow plants was observed in compartments 16 and 20 
of the Davy Crockett NF, where feral hogs had broken and flattened 
plants (Walker 2012, pers. comm.). Large groups of feral hogs were 
observed in Neches River rose-mallow sites within compartments 55 and 
16 of the Davy Crockett NF (Walker 2012, pers. comm.). Habitat damage 
is rangewide, and although Neches River rose-mallow may not the primary 
target during foraging activity, plants have been damaged.
    Although the Neches River rose-mallow grows adjacent to permanent 
standing water or may occur within infrequently flooded areas, this 
does not limit the access of feral hogs. Further, drought may enhance 
accessibility to Neches River rose-mallow sites, thus increasing their 
susceptibility to trampling by feral hogs. Unmanaged feral hog 
populations can lead to increased soil disturbance and impacts to the 
native vegetative community, which could create prime conditions for 
nonnative species to invade. Current feral hog damage has been 
documented at four of the 11 Neches River rose-mallow sites. Feral hogs 
are a present threat and will likely continue to be a threat in the 
near future. However, at this time the severity of impacts to the 
Neches River rose-mallow is low.
    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 observed on The 
Texas Land Conservancy's Lovelady site in 2011. The Neches River rose-
mallow at the Lovelady site suffered severe documented herbivory where 
stems had been eaten almost to the ground (TXNDD 2012a). The Texas Land 
Conservancy has attempted to exclude these livestock, and has proposed 
constructing an exclusion fence around the current location of the 
Neches River rose-mallow population; however, funding has not been 
secured (Dietz 2011, pers. comm.). The Neches River rose-mallow at 
Lovelady is concentrated along a low area leading into a stock pond 
(Miller 2011, pers. comm.). Only one of 11 sites (9 percent of the 
total known population) has shown damage from cattle herbivory. 
Trampling has not been observed at the Lovelady site or any other. 
Drought could exacerbate herbivory, as was seen in the severe drought 
of 2011, which could lead to an increase in trampling. The immediacy 
and severity of herbivory to the Neches River rose-mallow is high, but 
the exposure to herbivory is low. Therefore, we conclude that herbivory 
is not a

[[Page 56062]]

threat to to the Neches River rose-mallow.
Natural Gas Pipelines and Well Activity
    The Haynesville or Bossier and Eagle Ford Shale formations in east 
Texas are currently being developed for oil and natural gas production. 
The Texas Railroad Commission 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 Neches 
River rose-mallow, including Houston, Trinity, Nacogdoches, and 
Cherokee Counties, may be subject to increased oil and natural gas 
exploration in the future (Texas Railroad Commission 2012). However, 
oil and gas exploration was not observed on or directly adjacent to any 
of the Neches River rose-mallow populations that the Service observed 
in 2011, and currently there are no proposals near extant Neches River 
rose-mallow populations. Therefore, we determine that oil and natural 
gas exploration activities are not currently a threat to the Neches 
River rose-mallow.
Climate Change
    We discuss the topic of climate change in greater detail under ``A. 
The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of 
Its Habitat or Range'' for the Texas golden gladecress (which, like the 
Neches River rose-mallow, 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 Neches River rose-mallow by altering flow regimes 
and by temporarily increasing the depth of its wetland habitat to a 
level at which the species cannot survive. A warmer climate with more 
precipitation extremes may also increase competition from native and 
nonnative invasive plant species (Service 2010b, p. 8). The timing of 
precipitation is also crucial for the Neches River rose-mallow, as seed 
dispersal is likely dependent on flowing water.
    Neches River rose-mallow has shown evidence of damage from drought 
conditions. In October 2011, all Neches River rose-mallow populations 
and habitats showed evidence of damage from the previous 3 years of 
drought, including changes in leaf morphology, dead plants at specific 
sites, reduced seed production, and lower water levels in perennial 
wetlands. In addition, one site (The Texas Land Conservancy site) 
showed evidence of herbivory by livestock. The survival of Neches River 
rose-mallow populations during previous drought cycles may have been 
aided by its greater abundance and by greater habitat contiguity. Loss 
of habitat contiguity impedes the recolonization of sites from 
neighboring seed sources following a catastrophic loss, such as from 
drought. More frequent droughts will further exasperate these impacts 
to the Neches River rose-mallow.
    With climate change projections of warmer and more frequent 
droughts, and more extreme precipitation events, impacts to the Neches 
River rose-mallow will continue. The severity of impacts to the Neches 
River rose-mallow is high, as all populations will be impacted. 
Further, this threat is current and will continue into the near future.
Other Conservation Efforts
    Three populations of the Neches River rose-mallow exist along SH 
ROWs in Houston, Trinity, and Cherokee Counties. The 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. Because the 
Neches River rose-mallow was not a listed species, the MOU relates to 
protection of Neches River 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.
    Five populations, including a portion of the SH 94 site, are 
located on private lands. Historically, two candidate conservation 
agreements were formed between the Service and Champion International 
(Champion) in 1998, and with Temple-Inland Forest Products (Temple-
Inland) in 2002, to conserve the Neches River rose-mallow on both 
sites. The candidate conservation agreements have expired, and private 
landowners are not restricted by guidelines outlined those agreements. 
Champion's 5-year candidate conservation agreement 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 by 
hand and at times of little or no wind (Service 1998, p. 4). The 
Champion property was sold to Temple-Inland in 2001, and in 2004, the 
candidate conservation agreement expired (Service 2010b, p. 9). The 
Temple-Inland candidate conservation agreement covered an area that has 
a 20-ac (8.1-ha) wetland with Neches River rose-mallow (Boggy Slough 
site in Table 4); the plants declined due to drought and alteration of 
an onsite wetland. A smaller wetland with Neches River 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 
(Service 2002, p. 3; Service 2010b, p. 9). The Temple-Inland candidate 
conservation agreement was valid from 2002-2004. Contact was made with 
the owners, and the Service and TPWD visited the site in October 2011. 
Plants appeared healthy, but nonnative and native species encroachment 
into Neches River rose-mallow habitat was observed (Miller 2011, pers. 
comm.).
    Four known sites lie within the Davy Crockett NF, which is managed 
under the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan. The USFS considers 
the Neches River rose-mallow a sensitive species. Actions occurring on 
USFS property must not result in a net loss of species viability or 
create significant trends toward the need for Federal listing. However, 
USFS standards and guidelines in the plan are not mandatory and do not 
address all threats pertaining to the Neches River rose-mallow.
    The Lovelady site is owned by The Texas Land Conservancy, once 
known as the Natural Area Preservation Association. Thirty acres (12 
ha) of land were purchased in 2004, located north of SH 230 (The Texas 
Land Conservancy 2011). Purchase of this easement on

[[Page 56063]]

private land was specifically for the conservation of the Neches River 
rose-mallow; however, plants occur on private land, and they are not 
offered protection under the Act unless there is a Federal nexus. 
However, The Texas Land Conservancy had initiated a voluntary effort to 
construct a cattle-exclusion fence, but funds were lacking 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 (Stephen F. Austin State University 1999, 
p. 1), and was used as an experimental plot to test fertilizer and 
mulching effects on the Neches River rose-mallow (Scott 1997, pp. 6-7). 
This site is informally managed through mowing and burning regimes 
prescribed by Stephen F. Austin State University staff, but 
encroachment from native woody species has been observed in the past 
(Creech 2011c, pers. comm.). The Neches River rose-mallow was last 
observed in 1980 at the Harrison County site and the site has not been 
revisted since then due to a lack of accessibility. The Neches River 
rose-mallow was last observed at the Camp Olympia site in 1978. The 
site has been revisited in 1992 and 1993, but has not been observed 
(Warnock 1995, pp. 6, 8; TXNDD 2012a, pp. 58-60). Introductions onto 
Mill Creek Gardens and the Pineywoods Native Plant Center on the 
Stephen F. Austin State University campus have provided researchers the 
opportunities to study the species, including its affinity for 
hybridization. Seed has also been collected by the Mercer Arboretum in 
Ft. Collins, Colorado.
Summary of Factor A
    Based on our evaluation of the best available scientific and 
commercial data, we conclude that the present loss and modification of 
the Neches River rose-mallow's habitat is a threat that has significant 
impacts to the species' continued survival. Threats include competition 
for light and nutrients by native and nonnative invasive plant species, 
altered hydrology, herbicide drift, and trampling by feral hogs. These 
threats may be exacerbated by future road and bridge construction and 
maintenance projects. We determine that livestock grazing is not a 
threat to the species. Although silvicultural practices have caused 
some prior impacts to the species, we do not anticipate that 
silviculture activities will continue to be a threat. The activities 
related to exploration and development of oil and natural gas wells are 
not currently a threat to the species. Effects of climate change may be 
exacerbated by effects from other threats. 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 Neches River rose-mallow. Therefore, we conclude that habitat loss, 
destruction, and modification is a threat to the Neches River rose-
mallow rangewide both now and in the future.

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

    The showy flowers produced by the genus Hibiscus make it of high 
horticultural interest (Service 2010b, 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 Neches River rose-mallow plants online (Creech 2011a, 
pers. comm.). Neches River 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 Neches River 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 Mercer Arboretum Rare and Endangered 
Gardens, where they have remained; seeds and plants have not been 
transplanted back into the wild populations (Tiller 2011, pers. comm.). 
Neches River 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 Neches 
River 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 scientific and commercial data available, we conclude that 
collection for recreational, scientific, or educational purposes is not 
a threat to the Neches River rose-mallow and is not likely to become 
one 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 typically to a lesser degree than white-
tailed deer (Everitt et al. 1999, pp. 187-193). In 1993, evidence of 
herbivory was present at four of the 11 Neches River rose-mallow 
subpopulations at Lovelady (Warnock 1995, p. 18) and in 2010, at 
compartment 20 (Allen and Duty 2010, p. 3). In 2011, at five of the 11 
populations, aboveground portions of the Neches River rose-mallow, 
mainly the tips, were grazed by cattle, with the most intense herbivory 
occurring at the Lovelady site; cattle on adjacent land were the likely 
culprit. Herbivore consumption of plants could decrease the 
reproductive success of the Neches River rose-mallow (Adler et al. 
2001, p. 1). Only at 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, which 
increases and strengthens the girth rather than the height of the plant 
(Strauss and Agrawal 1999, p. 179; Bailey 2006, p. 415).
    Insect damage and predation has been observed on Neches River rose-
mallow plants in several populations; however, regrowth of foliage 
after herbivory incidents may indicate that the Neches River rose-
mallow is adapted to herbivory (Strauss and Agrawal 1999, p. 179). 
Ninety percent of the first foliage of Neches River rose-mallow leaves 
at Lovelady had been consumed by insects (Service 2010b, p. 8) with 
insect predation also seen on compartment 11 plants in 2006 (Philipps 
2009, p. 1). The scentless plant bug (Niesthrea louisianica) was 
observed on plants in compartment 55 (Miller 2011, pers. comm.). This 
bug is known to deposit egg masses on stems, leaves, 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 Neches River rose-mallow plants on all Davy Crockett NF sites 
(Miller 2011, pers. comm.) and were likely caused by this plant bug. 
Larval forms of the Hibiscus sawfly (Atomacera decepta) can consume 
Neches River rose-mallow seed pods in herbaria, but have not been noted 
to affect wild populations (Wieland 1995, p. 1; Creech

[[Page 56064]]

2011a, pers. comm.). However, these bugs are not considered a 
significant pest because the damage to the plants is minor (Toth 2007, 
p. 6).
    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 Neches River rose-mallow could 
increase. 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 Neches 
River rose-mallow.
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. Neches River 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 
rangewide, 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, but it is not a threat 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 Neches River rose-mallow.
    Davy Crockett NF lands are federally owned and managed by the USFS 
for the general public. Four populations of the Neches River rose-
mallow occur on the Davy Crockett NF. The Davy Crockett NF classifies 
the Neches River 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 for 
National Forests and Grasslands in Texas (USDA 1996, entire). This 
management zone includes the bed, bank, and water resources of the 
rivers, perennial and intermittent streams and wetlands, and their 
adjacent areas (United States Department of Agriculture 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 (United States Department of 
Agriculture 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 (United States Department of 
Agriculture 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 ``Nonnative Species'' 
under the Factor A discussion), routine fires may play a role in 
reducing Chinese tallow. Actions that may affect Neches River rose-
mallow habitat need to be assessed using these standards and guidelines 
because these are considered regulations that need to be followed 
(Philipps 2012, pers. comm.). The encroachment of nonnative and native 
vegetation in Neches River rose-mallow habitat is not addressed in the 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for National Forests and 
Grasslands in Texas; however, the application of prescribed fire in 
some areas may benefit the Neches River rose-mallow.
    The Neches River rose-mallow is considered by the USFS 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 (USFS Manual 2670, 2005). The management 
objectives described in USFS Manual 2670 are to develop and implement 
management practices to ensure that species do not become endangered or 
threatened because of USFS actions, including: Maintain viable 
populations of all native and desired nonnative wildlife, fish, and 
plant species in habitats distributed throughout their geographic range 
on NF System lands; and develop and implement management objectives for 
populations or habitat of sensitive species or both. Application of 
USFS Manual 2670 standards are only guidelines, and are not mandatory. 
However, the USFS must 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 USFS 
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. Specific threats to the Neches River rose-mallow are 
not addressed with this designation.
    Existing regulatory mechanisms do not provide protection for plants 
on private lands. Neches River rose-mallow populations on Davy Crockett 
NF lands only receive some protection from habitat modification. In 
addition, not all threats are addressed, such as encroachment of 
nonnative and native species into Neches River rose-mallow habitat. The 
designation as a sensitive species for the Neches River rose-mallow 
does not address the threats

[[Page 56065]]

specific to the species. Only when the species is listed under the Act 
will the USFS be required to consult on projects that could impact the 
species or its habitat. Therefore, based on our review of the best 
scientific and commercial data available, we conclude that existing 
regulatory mechanisms provide some protection against threats, but 
these mechanisms do not address or ameliorate all of the threats.

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).
    Klips (1995) looked at the genetic affinity of the Neches River 
rose-mallow compared with the two other congeners (similar) species, 
Hibiscus moscheutos and H. laevis. In his study, Klips concluded both 
H. dasycalyx and H. laevis are genetically more similar than H. 
moscheutos. Mendoza created the genetic fingerprints for all three 
congener species to help determine the level of hybridization within 
and among populations. Both studies observed wild plants that appeared 
to be hybrids; however, neither Klips nor Mendoza studied the 
occurrence of hybridization among the populations of the Neches River 
rose-mallow. There is no evidence that Neches River rose-mallow 
populations are experiencing genetic drift or inbreeding. We conclude 
that small population size is not a threat to the Neches River 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 Neches River rose-mallow sites contain 
individuals that may be products of crosses between the Neches River 
rose-mallow with H. laevis or H. moscheutos. In some locations, H. 
laevis or H. moscheutos, or both, grow in close proximity to the Neches 
River rose-mallow. These plants have leaves, flowers, and floral parts 
resembling both parent species (Service 2010b, p. 3; TXNDD 2012a, 
entire). Other species accounts, including our candidate notices of 
review and anecdotal accounts from USFS, TPWD, and other botanists, 
conclude that there is the potential that hybrids may exist at most, if 
not all, of the sites; however, genetic studies have not confirmed that 
this phenomenon is occurring. So far, these are only observations, and 
no genetic studies have taken place to verify if hybridization is 
occurring. The University of Texas-Tyler is researching the 
hybridization issue for Neches River rose-mallow and its impacts on the 
population; however, the project is only in its infancy, and no results 
have been determined. Therefore, we do not consider hybridization to be 
a threat to the Neches River rose-mallow.
Conservation Efforts To Reduce Other Natural or Manmade Factors 
Affecting Its Continued Existence
    We have several examples of voluntary conservation efforts that are 
currently underway, or which took place in the past, that directly, or 
indirectly, assist the Neches River rose-mallow by addressing the 
impacts of habitat loss and degradation, or low population and 
individual plant numbers. See description under the Factor A analysis 
above.

Cumulative Effects From Factors A Through E

    The threats that have the most severe impacts to the Neches River 
rose-mallow and its habitat involve the loss, destruction, 
modification, and curtailment of habitat. The rangewide and imminent 
threat from nonnative species encroachment (mainly Chinese tallow) and 
native woody species (sweetgum and green ash) will likely continue if 
regulatory mechanisms are not employed. Alteration of natural 
hydrological features of Neches River rose-mallow is an ongoing and 
potential threat, having rangewide impacts. Trampling and herbivory 
also impact the Neches River rose-mallow.
    Threats discussed in this finding could work in concert with one 
another to cumulatively create situations that potentially impact 
Neches River rose-mallow beyond the scope of the combined threats that 
we have already analyzed. Specifically, threats may be exacerbated by 
the effects of ongoing and future climate change, especially the 
projected increases in temperature and decreases in precipitation that 
may increase the frequency and severity of droughts. Although the 
Neches River rose-mallow is adapted to being dry during portions of the 
year, a complete lack of water can diminish its ability to expand its 
known range and reduce its genetic exchange. Further, climate change 
could lead to an increase in nonnative species, because nonnative 
species can typically tolerate a wider range of habitat conditions 
outside of those that are suitable for the Neches River rose-mallow. 
Drought conditions can increase the susceptibility of sites to be 
impacted from trampling from feral hogs, such that observations of 
broken and flattened plants would increase. The reproductive 
capabilities of feral hogs and their ubiquitous foraging behavior 
allows them to adapt well to drought conditions. Herbivory from cattle, 
or white-tail deer, would also increase in concert with future effects 
of climate change. Hydrological alterations combined with drought 
conditions could cause or intensify herbivory. This phenomenon was only 
observed at The Texas Land Conservancy site in 2011 by cattle, where 
drought likely increased the grazing pressures not normally experienced 
by the Neches River rose-mallow within this site. A reduction in the 
height of Neches River rose-mallow stems could increase its 
vulnerability to browsing by cattle. The drought conditions of 2011 
caused decreased heights in Neches River rose-mallow plants; this, 
combined with the lack of a cattle exclusion fence on an adjacent land 
to The Texas Land Conservancy, likely increased the risk of herbivory. 
When normal rainfall resumes and preferred forage sources become 
available, herbivory would likely decrease.
Summary of Factors
    The primary factors threats to Neches River rose-mallow are 
nonnative species encroachment at all sites; invasion of sites by 
native woody species, causing shading and increased competition for 
resources; ongoing and potential changes to key hydrological features 
of the species' habitat; future construction and ROW projects; and 
aerial herbicide drift incidents. These factors pose imminent threats 
to the species because they are ongoing or are likely to occur in the 
near future. Since the Neches River rose-mallow is endemic to 
intermittent and perennial wetlands, drought can exacerbate all of the 
existing threats.

Determination

    Based on our review of the best scientific and commercial data

[[Page 56066]]

available, we conclude that the Neches River rose-mallow is likely to 
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future and, 
therefore, meets the definition of a threatened species. This finding, 
explained below, is based on our conclusions that the Neches River 
rose-mallow's primary threats are imminent, thus causing the species to 
exhibit low viability as characterized as having only one site close to 
meeting its conservation goals. Significant factors that support this 
determination include the following:
     The significant and ongoing threat from nonnative species 
at all sites (Factor A);
     The encroachment of habitat from woody natives (Factor A);
     The potential extirpation of an occupied Neches River 
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);
     The trampling from feral hogs (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).
    We relied on Pavlik's Minimum Viable Population analysis tool 
(1996, pp. 127-155) and species experts to determine the conservation 
goals of the species. Based on the best known and available scientific 
information on the species' life-history and reproductive 
characteristics, we concluded that the conservation goals for the 
Neches River rose-mallow included 10 viable populations, each 
containing at least 1,400 individual plants. The species is limited to 
the Neches, Sabine, and Angelina River basins and the Mud and 
Tantabogue Creek basins with 11 extant sites throughout this range. 
However, many of these sites were introduced and are now compromised by 
threats from feral hog damage, hydrological changes, nonnative and 
native species encroachment into habitat, construction projects, and 
herbicide overspray. Future management actions that ameliorate these 
threats could allow for the species to expand within its known range. 
The extant populations are generally small. The only site that has come 
close to reaching the conservation goals are on compartment 55 of the 
USFS; however, it still only comprises 53 percent of the needed plants 
at this site (750 plants were seen in 2010).
    The main sources of habitat loss, degradation, and modification 
include hydrologic changes (which alter habitat suitability, growth of 
plants, expansion into new areas, and potentially seed dispersal); 
encroachment of habitat from woody natives and invasive nonnatives 
(which out-shade and compete for nutrients and water absorption); road 
construction and maintenance projects; aerial drift of herbicides 
(which may go unregulated on private lands); trampling by feral hogs 
(known to flatten and break plants); and herbivory. These can have a 
cumulative impact that further depletes population numbers. Drought is 
likely to exacerbate these threats.
    Most threats are distributed across the geographic range of the 
Neches River rose-mallow. These threats include: Encroachment by woody 
natives and invasive nonnatives, hydrological changes, and trampling. 
The threat from nonnatives is imminent and is occurring at all 
populations, resulting in competition for light and nutrients, but 
maintenance activities occur within some populations to minimize this 
threat. Although information on populations inhabiting private lands is 
a bit lacking, some degree of hydrological change has been seen at most 
sites and is therefore rangewide. This threat is likely to continue 
into the future as water resources become more scarce and important to 
the human population. Drought will likely exacerbate existing threats 
and impact all populations. Direct impacts to plants from trampling has 
been documented at 4 of the 11 Neches River rose-mallow sites, and 
several others have had documented observations of damaged habitat from 
feral hog tracks. However, some threats do not affect all Neches River 
rose-mallow populations. For instance, drift from herbicide spraying 
likely resulted in the extirpation of the Neches River 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, Neches River 
rose-mallow populations on NF lands are not threatened by this 
activity. 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 USFS lands have declined in recent years. Some threats 
are likely to occur in the near 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 Neches River 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).
    We evaluated whether the Neches River rose-mallow is in danger of 
extinction now (i.e., an endangered species) or is likely to become in 
danger of becoming endangered (i.e., a threatened species) in the 
foreseeable future. The foreseeable future refers to the extent to 
which the Secretary can reasonably rely on predictions about the future 
in making determinations about the conservation status of the species. 
A key statutory difference between an endangered species and a 
threatened species is the timing of when a species may be in danger of 
extinction, now (endangered) or in the foreseeable future (threatened 
species).
    In the case for the Neches River rose-mallow, the best available 
scientific information indicates that, while reductions in the species' 
range have not occurred, there have been significant impacts from 
habitat modification and loss that has caused reductions in most, if 
not all, of the known Neches River rose-mallow populations. However, 
there are sufficient numbers of populations available, some of which 
are being conserved for the Neches River rose-mallow. Four of the 11 
existing Neches River rose-mallow populations, including the largest 
and most robust population, occur on USFS lands. However, the USFS 
Revised Land and Resource Management Plant does not address all the 
significant threats to the species. The Texas Land Conservancy private 
land site was purchased as a conservation easement for the Neches River 
rose-mallow. However, these protection measures are voluntary. We 
conclude that the Neches River rose-mallow is likely to become an 
endangered species within the foreseeable future, meeting the standard 
of a threatened species.
    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 Neches River rose-mallow are geographically 
concentrated in any way.

[[Page 56067]]

If the threats are consistently uniform throughout the species' range, 
then no portion is likely to warrant further consideration.
    As threats extend throughout the species' entire range and are not 
geographically concentrated, it is unnecessary to determine whether the 
Neches River 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 are 
listing the Neches River rose-mallow as a threatened species throughout 
its range in accordance with sections 3(20) 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 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. Revisions of the plan may be done 
to address continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive 
information becomes available. 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 (https://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our 
Texas Coastal Ecological Services Field Office in Corpus Christi (see 
ADDRESSES, above).
    Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the 
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal 
agencies, States, tribes, 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.
    Once 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 Texas golden gladecress and the Neches 
River rose-mallow. Information on our grant programs that are available 
to aid species recovery can be found at: https://www.fws.gov/grants.
    Please let us know if you are interested in participating in 
recovery efforts for the Texas golden gladecress and the Neches River 
rose-mallow. 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).
    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 listed species or result in destruction or adverse 
modification of 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 consultation with the Service.
    For the Texas golden 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: (1) Provision of Federal financial and 
technical assistance through the U.S. Department of Agriculture; (2) 
permits issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for 
installation of interstate natural gas pipelines and associated 
infrastructure; (3) provision of Federal Highway Administration funds 
for road projects; (4) provision of Department of Housing and Urban 
Development funds for municipal and residential construction and 
infrastructure projects in towns along SH 21 within the range of the 
Texas golden gladecress; (5) funds for electric service improvements 
provided to electric cooperatives by the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service; (6) 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 (7) actions funded by the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency. 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.

[[Page 56068]]

    For the Neches River 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 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) 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 U.S. Department 
of Agriculture's USFS; 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 endangered or 
threatened (section 9(a)(2)(E) of the Act).
    Chapter 88 of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code lists plant species 
as State endangered or threatened, with the same status as the Federal 
designation, immediately upon completion of final Federal listing. The 
State prohibits commerce in endangered or threatened plants and the 
collection of listed plant species from public land (defined as State-
owned and land belonging to local governments) without a permit issued 
by TPWD. The State also prohibits removal for purposes of commercial 
sale, possession for commercial sale, transport for commercial sale, or 
sale of all or part of a listed plant from private land without a 
permit issued under Texas Parks and Wildlife Code, section 88.0081. 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 listing on 
proposed and ongoing activities within the range of listed species. 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 Texas golden gladecress or 
the Neches River 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 Texas golden 
gladecress or Neches River rose-mallow plants from populations located 
on State-owned land (highway ROWs) or on land owned by local 
governments.
    (3) Unauthorized removal, damage, or destruction of Texas golden 
gladecress or Neches River rose-mallow plants on private land in 
violation of any State regulation, including criminal trespass.
    (4) Unauthorized removal, damage, or destruction of Texas golden 
gladecress or Neches River rose-mallow plants from populations located 
on federally owned lands.
    Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a 
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Texas 
Coastal Ecological Services Field Office in Corpus Christi (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Requests for copies of the regulations 
concerning listed species 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, TX 78412-5837 (telephone 361-994-9005; facsimile 361-994-
8262).
    Upon listing the Texas golden gladecress and the Neches River rose-
mallow under the Act, the State of Texas's Endangered Species Act 
(Texas Administrative Code Chapter 88:88.001-88.012) is automatically 
invoked. The State's Endangered Species Act would prohibit commerce in 
endangered or threatened plants and the collection of listed plant 
species from public land without a permit issued by TPWD and would 
restrict any take for commercial purposes from private land to 
individuals possessing a permit issued under section 88.0081. The 
State's law would also 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, some Federal 
protection afforded to these species by listing them (Texas golden 
gladecress as endangered, and Neches River rose-mallow as threatened) 
will be reinforced and supplemented by protection under State law.
    Under section 4(d) of the Act, the Secretary of the Interior has 
discretion to issue such regulations as he deems necessary and 
advisable to provide for the conservation of threatened species. Our 
implementing regulations (50 CFR 17.71) for threatened plants generally 
incorporate the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act for endangered 
plants, except under certain circumstances, such as when a ``special 
rule'' promulgated under section 4(d) of the Act has been issued with 
respect to a particular threatened species. In such a case, the general 
prohibitions in 50 CFR 17.61 would not apply to that species, and 
instead, the special rule would define specific take prohibitions and 
exceptions, which we consider necessary and advisable to conserve the 
species, that would apply for that particular threatened species. With 
respect to a threatened plant, the Secretary of the Interior also has 
the discretion to prohibit by regulation any act prohibited by section 
9(a)(2) of the Act. Exercising this discretion, which has been 
delegated to the Service by the Secretary, the Service has developed 
general prohibitions that are appropriate for most threatened plants in 
50 CFR 17.71 and exceptions to those prohibitions in 50 CFR 17.72. We 
are not promulgating a special section 4(d)

[[Page 56069]]

rule, and as a result, all of the section 9 prohibitions, including the 
``take'' prohibitions, will apply to the Neches River rose-mallow.

Required Determinations

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 in connection with listing a species as an endangered or 
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. We published a 
notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal 
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

References Cited

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

Authors

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

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, 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) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       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          814     17.96(a)           NA
                                   mallow.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Leavenworthia texana............  Texas golden         U.S.A. (TX)...........  Brassicaceae.........            E          814     17.96(a)           NA
                                   gladecress.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

    Dated: August 29, 2013.
Rowan W. Gould,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-22085 Filed 9-10-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P