Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Navasota Ladies Tresses
10:00 am 10: 15 10:45 11: 15 11 :45 12:00 1 :00 2:00 pm NAVASOTA LAD JES' -TRESSES RECOVERY TEAM MEETING JUNE 17, 2008 COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS AGENDA ~ Welcome Update on response to genetics paper Compilation of comments (Alan) Discussion with Jim Manhart and Cathy Walters (Alan) Recovery Team recommendation to Regional Office (flo) Status of 5-year report (Chris Best) ti"'. . -~~,:~tV'l<-l' . Sh~ v'' I Status on Recovery Outline (Chris Best) Status of folks proposed for inclusion on the Recovery Team Lunch Other business Spiranthes parks ii informational pamphlet Next meeting date <.JJ. ~ , L,·~ ... ~gA Meeting ends ----- 10:00 am 10:15 10:30 10:45 11 :00 NAVASOTA LADIES' -TRESSES RECOVERY TEAM MEETING NOVEMBER 8, 2004 COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS AGENDA Welcome Update on possible new site/population (Charmaine Delmatier) Progress of the genetics work (Cathy Walters) Status of the City of College Station's land acquisition (Kristan Clann) Status ofNFWF Proposals • Description ofNFWF Proposal and how it compares to the Non- traditional Section 6 Land Acquisition grant (Clarke and Windham) • Identification of property for NL T conservation 11 : 15 Recovery Plan Revision Assignments? • Assignments and schedule for the following suggested revisions ~ (lVJ.fRW\·-~M-'md updates, based o.n last m~etings minutes: ~ . t. ~ (\J • --~ o Background mformatlon 1' ~ CWVttlJ ~ V\lvJ"" o Recovery criteria Y~.LJi..t..x ~ ~ o Captive propagation 1\ 0 o Hydrology o Land acquisition o Protocols for transplanting to WFC. 11 :30 pm Lunch 12:30 Site Visits • Indian Lakes subdivision 2:00 pm Meeting ends ~ -AW~*7¥ --1--'tl-05 ~~-~OVtNlT~ ~~~ ,.i ~ _,_.. NL-I) wt-L'.B~~ ~ ~~/~ 10:00 am 10 :15 11:30 12 :30 pm 1:30 2:00 pm NAVASOTA LADIES' -TRESSES RECOVERY TEAM MEETING SEPTEMBER 28, 2005 COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS AGENDA Welcome Genetics work update and implications of findings (Cathy Parker) Lunch Recovery Plan Outline Next steps Numbers of populations How many individuals in population Habitat characteristics-what is and what is NOT habitat Funding issues Who figures out the answers to these questions? Who writes the recovery plan? Where is the money going to come from? Who is going to go after the money? BIG QUESTION: What does recovery look like for this plant? When it is all said and done, what yardstick do we use to measure our success? Next meeting date Meeting ends 10:00 am 10:15am Welcome NAVASOTA LAD JES' -TRESSES RECOVERY TEAM MEETING JUNE 16, 2005 COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS AGENDA Recovery Plan Outline Revision -Begin Compiling Available Information Criteria for Two-Pronged Approach 1. Protection of known existing populations 2. Research/gather new information 1. Protection of Known Existing Populations • Current status of known sites (Kathi Parker) • Education/outreach efforts (Dana/Kristen) • Identify areas currently protected (James) • Inventory known locations (James) 2. Research and Gather Information • Find new populations using GIS approach (Joe L.) )<. • Continue genetics work (Cathy/Jim)/ • Improve habitat definitions o Collect land histories (Fred) 'j.. o Get better site descriptions (Jamesf'Kathi/Fred) • Collect demographic info on population and metapopulation levels (Dana/Norma) v • Determine threats (Fred)I' 12:00 pm Lunch 1:00 pm Finish Information Compilation 2:00 pm Meeting ends Criteria for Two-Pronged Approach • The two "prongs" are: I . Protection of known existing populations 2. Research/gather new information Protection of Known Existing Populations • Acquire land (whole plots or conservation easements) • Work with private landowners, especially where land acquisition is not feasible (Kristan) I. The Brazos Valley Land Conservancy can be an excellent resource for holding conservation easements. The BVLC was incorporated in 2005 and covers a 7-county area (Brazos, Robertson, Leon, Grimes, Burleson, Madison, Milam). The BVLC is a new land trust and plans to be equipped with the funding and staff to hold conservation easements sometime in 2006. 2. The City of College Station Greenways Program has, and \Yill, accept mitigation funds to purchase NL T habitat. · 3. Gauge interest in landowners participating in voluntary Habitat Conservation Plans. Utilize USDA funding sources, such as the Farm & Ranchland Protection Program, Grasslands Reserve Program, Wetlands Reserve Program, Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. 5. Utilize the newly established Texas Farm and Ranch Lands Conservation Program (a purchase of development rights program). 6. Communicate with agencies such as TxDOT and BVSWMA, who ~~:D'.Z:::I;;:igateand~e~~~ ~Lr -~~ ~'1c ~ -~\ecl_{{'\n.-4 ~~ -t--\~--re.-~ s:~~ ~~~~v..: EducatiorlToutre.ach (Dana/Kristan~ . . . -A'\..(A_ ( t-\ovt .1::ert· \_ _ J \1.. (}_, .Y {\_ I. Work with land "managers" mcludmg city planners. -~ N~-~\~ ~~ ~ 2. Utilize the future BVLC Board of Directors to educate landowners. -&:;~ ()..W.,y yY<i\.e./!. \..__ ct,w:;l.\.J\..!\tlffi.~3. Advertise the NL T conservation zones in Lick Creek Park and plan for -i--- NLT conservation zones and education centers (i.e. kiosks, posters) as part of the TMPA regional park. vfj--~, 4. Work with Texas A&M through students and request their ideas and ~ support as part of classwork. () 10 __..!-... 5. Ar~:=~s::;-e;l~a~ducatiih~~ %l)\,\_.CD qr~ Q9~w.te_~~~ be~ L~ ~Q>v_) ~ e~c\ ~~ ~ ~~ ~Ll~~u(°O\ \~~fe~ ~WCWA_ 10:00 am 10:15 am 10:30 am 12:00 pm 1:00 pm 2:00 pm NAVAS OTA LADIES' -TRESSES RECOVERY TEAM MEETING MARCH 30, 2005 COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS AGENDA Welcome Update on NFWF proposals Recovery Plan Outline Revision -Discussion • Review of current Recovery Plan • Hugh Wilson draft Recovery Plan revision • Review recovery plans for similar species (designate a committee to do this?) • Information to be gathered/included Lunch o background information o recovery criteria o captive propagation o hydrology, land acquisition o protocols for transplanting to WFC. o Timeline to accomplish the above tasks, set deadlines (Dec 2005 for first draft outline?) Finish Recovery Plan Revision Discussion Meeting ends Nr\ ~~1 ~ ,tvl) ~/~ tOS" '--¥ ~ .~ +tri W1?rn ~0Wj lf~ ~VV\ ~~~ ~~'~V,{, ~ ~u\~ [IA ~ -('a"' -to ~(J'l+i~ ~ -tw_, ~~ ~4Vl - ~-\CJ~ r~\[tl-ru~~~ \MO~l -\11w{_~~ MLW_p(ttvtjs W(, lYI ~ ~ o.;1~ 1 ~ 6Y\ S~ WiJ <' 1Y\o;L~ ~ ant_4-~ ~ev\__\vt ~wt<;~ ~ws Co~. --w-v{,oc~ ~ \r\~ OiJrk -rve_~ ~~~ (:X<.<J-~~lqAl'.S()V\~~ "'(\'il;:f ~µ.k~I~~ -~~~ ~\4-to ~~rot_ vJ_~.~ (}/\ ~ --tccJAV'.l°l\AL~ -p* ~ WY\~~ ~~lM d0N\<Yt{~ ~ \"\o {,¥J.llw.L. "'~--!VllMtC<J Ws ~1 ?l~ W VU l ~ l 4_ ~eJ lf\S ~ CTVL, W~' eo{C<AQ~ \'\~~~ML ~~~ :: 10:00 am 10:15 10:30 10:45 11:00 11:30 12:30 pm 1:00 1:30 2:00pm Welcome Navasota Ladies'-Tresses Recovery Team Meeting July 13, 2004 College Station, Texas Tentative Agenda Fall survey results (Cathy Parker) Progress of the genetics work (Alan Pepper) Progress of the City of College Station's land acquisition Mapping of NLT populations Past mapping What's been done in the past/ FWS maps (Charmaine) Where that information is What needs to be done Where will the new data be kept Proposed mapping project (Cliff Pelchat) Lunch Identifying property for NLT conservation Revision of the recovery plan Replacing Paul Robertson as the implementation chair Additions to the Recovery Team Meeting ends '-~·-·- > United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE I 0711 Burnet Road, Suite 200 Austin, Texas 78758 (512) 490-0057 July 25, 2003 Dear Recovery Team Member: This letter is to infonn you that the first meeting for the Navasota ladies'-tresses Recovery Team will be held on August 13 , 2003 at the College Station Conference Center, 1300 George Bush Dr., across from the Texas A&M golf course. I have enclosed a tentative meeting agenda and directions to the conference center. Each member should have received a copy of the original Recovery Plan with their invitation letter, but in case you did not, extra copies will be available at the meeting for your convenience. This document will likely serve as a starting point for the development of an updated recovery plan and strategy for Navasota ladies'-tresses. The first meeting will include all members and consultants of the Recovery Team. It will be an educational meeting to review the Service's approach to the recovery planning process and to explain the role of a Recovery Team. It will also be an organizational meeting to discuss preliminary short- term and long-term conservation goals and an opportunity to share recent infonnation. If you have not yet provided written confirmation of your acceptance to participate on the Recovery Team (either by email or letter), please do so as soon as possible by mail, email, of fax to Charmaine Delmatier at: U.S . Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200 Austin, Texas 78751 Email: Channaine Delmatier@fws.gov FAX: (512) 490-0974 ~ .: ~ '. Thank you again for your participation on this Recovery Team For further assistance, please contact Charmaine Delmatier, (512) 490-0057, ext. 233. Coffee and pastries will be provided, but you will be responsible for your own lunch. Enclosures: Meeting agenda w 1~K-t Robert T. Pine Supervisor Map to College Station Conference Center cc: Dale Hall, Regional Director (attn: Recovery Coordinator) Navasota ladies'-tresses Rec-overy Team College Station Conference Center August 13, 2002 Agenda lO:OOam -10:45am: Introductions: Charmaine Delrnatier (USFWS Liaison, Austin Ecological Services) Housekeeping: Volunteer for taking meeting minutes? Overview of the Service's Recovery Handbook: Charmaine Delmatier 0 Recovery plan preparation and processing 0 Recovery objectives, criteria and strategies 0 Recovery team's role 10:45am -11 :30am: Presentations (Part 1) 0 Overview of current genetic work-Alan Pepper (Texas A&M) (20 min.) 0 Overview of Navasota ladies' -tresses; Taxonomy, Ecology, Distribution, Threats -Fred Smeins (Texas A&M) (25 min.) 11:30am -12:30pm: LUNCH 12:45pm -1 :15pm: Presentations (Part 2) 0 Status of local agreement for Alum Creek land parcel acquisition -Judy Downs (City of College Station) and Paul Clarke (Private Developer) (10 min.) 0 Status of past efforts to revise Recovery Plan, demonstration of website, internet possibilities for the recovery team -Hugh Wilson (Texas A&M) (20 minutes) 1 :15pm-2:00pm: Discussion . 0 Select Chairs for the Technical Subteam and Implementation Subteam 0 Review recovery criteria 0 Outline current recovery short-term and long-term goals 0 Schedule and assignments for completing a draft recovery plan revision 2:00pm: ADJOURN 07 123 103 11: 09 ) '6'979 764 3513 COLLEGE STATION COL 5TA t;UN.t VU< J 01 123103 11: u8 ·a::1111 -nH J::>lJ COLLEGE STATION ~UL ~IA ~v~r ~1~ --·-~ ·-·--···--.... City of College St~:ition * =Conference Cei1ter ; . ~\IV&. • TRN-17-2002 0g:25 , . ', . US FISH & WILDLIFE July 5th -College Station 1 512 490 0974 Spiranthes Park~ Meeting ;:Sy, NAME ORGANIZATION E-MAIL ADDRESS PHONE Lori Beiderman v/ lbied@lycos.com (979)694-4737 P.02 EXT Judy Downs v..,....... /City of College Station Jdowns@ci.college-station.tx.us ("....,~) '~""°-314q l Charmaine Oelmatier USFWS. Austin charrnaine de!matier@tws g~ (512)490-0057 233 Jenny Wilson v./" USFWS, Austin jenny witson@rws.gov (512)490--0057 231 Nathan Allan v/ USFWS, Austin nathan allan@fws.gov (512)490·0057 237 Jane Packard vV" Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences TAMU j-peckard@tamu.edu Paul Robertson/'~ TPW .~, l.roberts t wd.state.tx.us V Hugh Wilson 'tlV TAMU c· -wi on u. (979)845-3354 Dana Price ....t/ TPW .. _daha.price@tpwd.stat~.tx.us (512)912-7043 Brian H21ys ...;/ Texas Agricultural Extension Service bhays@tamu.edu (979)845-6442 Fred Smeins ./../ iAMU f-smeins@tamu.edu (979)645-5573 Karen Clary ,// TX. DOT Kcl~rv@dot.state .tx.us (512)416-2767 Michael Carpenter4 TX. DOT-Bryan mcarpen@dot.st~te.tx.ys (979)778-9766 Jennifer D. Nations../../ City of College Station jnatjons@cj,colleqe·station.tx1ys (979)764-3660 James R. Manhart U TAMU, Biology manhart@mail.bio.tamu.edu (979)845-3356 Molly Hitchcock.// Natalie T. Rulz ~ ../ City of College Station City of College Station (dev'I services) City of College Station (parks & mhitehcock@cl.collige-statlon .tx Jl§ (979)764-3570 nrui;@ci .college-station. tx. us (979) 764-3570 planning) dwooQ@ci.colleqe-station tx.us e;. CSC Engineering & Environmental y; David Wood./../ Stephen M. Swetish /.,/ Rick Conlin .,£/ consultants ssweti!h@txcyber.com (979)778-2810 ~ consultants City of College Station CSC Engineering & Environmental ~t>'> Peter B. Vanecek (parks&rec)(planning) 1 Neal Wilkins vv Texas A ricultural Extension Service ~~~_:__~___!~~~~~~~~~~~n~~s:::~~~~~y:z-_..1 ~~ ~""v~ca) --·--··------~ ~on'(Yl lD<,p io-3 ~(°)'\ DS"i y,~rr ·\\ ~~ r4 . l ~L,~---~ Co-~ce_ c~kc r. (;_ \' (()anZ? ~(ll".~7 ) loOO G-e"<"ee-~0 ~h.Or · ,\} __ a~~···--· _ ... ···" ·~o\~~61 . eo\\e_Je-45~$ J(Z,)G.~ ?l\t;(e5e.< ~> 'l~-=-34t5 r 7 V Nl on·, q~ ~ee.~ 61~) MS'-f3c15"0 -/ Sill 6cr ~aJwc&(~ vSco1+ Shtt-k (cr1q) 91s-~ v' ::5'tJm'S tho~ H1J((Inc-. j~,.,.,-1-ho-rne::i@hJrirc-C0"'1 ~9-z::Z::'bol"l:!':ez~t"Z(;1i1G~i7f~\~~~. '1"11'~~7"'1":i.,,,...· ,~~:,.. -ir~~r-:.uWTisL)ii 'W~,,_~GI\-, t=1 =t~'l~ai~ .... ~0L......2::i1.., r.it:1. .., .. ..t ..• ----,,. -· • '1 l ~Yo-•-X 4~~ ~ rnru.02 Navasota ladies'-tresses (Spiranthes parskiil) Meeting January 23, 2002 College Station, TX AGENDA 10 am-3:00 pm I. Update on research and conservation activities by attendees. City involvement update. II. Status update on the species. Mapping and monitoring needs. Is the Recovery Plan still relevant? What's the status on the update? Are our priorities still the same as they were in the original Recovery Plan of 1984? III. Immediate Goals/Preserve Design selection criteria -how will it -- reflect the Recovery Plan needs and priorities? Habitat management criteria and solutions. IV. Regional and programmatic planning with USFWS (NFWF funds) (utilities, agencies, private sector). V. Additional Topics. '\ Persons in attendance: Meeting Minutes Navasota ladies'-tresses (Spirnathes parskii) January 23, 2002 College Station, Texas U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS): Charmaine Delmatier, Jenny Wilson, Alisa Shull Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD): Dana Price City of College Station: Judy Downs, Peter Vanecek. Texas A&M University (TAMU): Hugh Wilson, Fred Smeins, James Manhart, Jane Packard, April Conkey, Brian Hays, Dale Kubenka, Alan Pepper, Larry Griffing, Courtney Smith, David Laurencio. Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT): Karen Clary, Michael Carpenter. CSC Engineering and Environmental Consultants: Stephen Swetish HDR Engineering: James Thomas Private: Lori Biederman The meeting was called to order by Dr. Smeins at approximately 10: 15 a.m. Updates: Judy Downs (JD) reported on City of College Station activities in terms of greenway and open space acquisition. The City has $3 .6M of bond money targeted for floodplains and open space and continues to look for lands to acquire. The Economic Development site haslOO acres set aside as a greenway. Brazos Green ways Council (BGC) promotes conservation of greenways-mostly made up of College Station residents Several sources of funds were discussed. These include NFWF, City Greenway Bond, Audubon Society, the Recovery land acquisition fund as well as the federal matching program. It was suggested that the committee develop a source of funds for property acquisition. Judy will prepare a report for review at the next meeting. * Mike Carpenter reported that TexDot paid $166,000 into the NFWF fund for approximately 21.4 acres impacted by TexDot for construction on Highway 6. Discussion followed on the use ofNFWF funds, and Jenny Wilson reported that the funds are species specific. NFWF and land acquisition funds can 't be used for mitigation. * Larry Griffing, TAMU Biology Dept., reported that the National Audubon Society has a program to get 1000 local nature centers/bird sanctuaries by 2020. Rio Brazos Audubon wants to start looking for a suitable site locally and mitigation areas are an attractive possibility. Funding could come from Audubon foundation or private foundations such as the Kresge Foundation. The key is to find other partners with similar interests. In order to attract such funding, a board of partners and contributors would have to be established and Rio Brazos Audubon could help with that. * Alisa Shull reported that USFWS will soon announce a new recovery land acquisition grant program. More details will hopefully be known by next meeting. Conservation group members are interested in locating the best sites to purchase for mitigation, and mentioned that we need a strong, quantitative reason to recommend purchase. James Thomas suggested we need to use GIS/remote sensing looking at the whole area to identify sites. Fred Smeins said that students have identified good sites and the habitat of the sites using remote sensing and GIS classification. Preferred sites specified in the 1984 Recovery Plan are listed on page 22 of the plan. The two safe sites recommended at that time are land north of the Texas International Speedway in College Station, Texas, and land near Carlos in Grimes County, Texas. Discussion followed on the status of these sites. * The speedway site in College Station is a 1200-acre privately owned tract and is planned for a development, "Thousand Oaks". A rnanmade lake flooded some of the former Spiranthes habitat. Dr. Smeins has completed work for the owners and thought that they might be willing to discuss mitigation possibilities. James Thomas suggested that the speedway site, which is high dollar property, may be better for preservation ofbottornland hardwoods. More valuable sites could be in Grimes County, where similar .. but less costly habitat exists near drainages of the Navasota. Would like to see GIS looking at several layers-a great project for a grad student. The Carlos site in Grimes County is within the permit area of the former TMP A lignite mine and had no deed restrictions or conservation easements. The original owner is dead and Kathie Parker is no longer monitoring this site. Overgrowth of woody vegetation may be a problem at this site. Fred Smeins commented that any protected site will need a long-term management plan to keep woody vegetation from encroaching. Jenny Wilson reviewed the USFWS policy regarding mitigation. A developer can not receive mitigation on land for which they are compensated. A discussion regarding public education followed. Fred Smeins suggested that the group develop an education program for developers and the City Council. We need to identify the groups interested, opportunities for funding, and important "hotspots" where the plant occurs. Landowners often don't understand regulatory issues concerning the plant. Pete Vanecek suggested that we get Development Services involved. The consensus was that a group should present information materials to boards such as planning and zoning, parks, the County Commissioners and Brazos Valley Council of Governments. It was agreed to discuss this in further detail at the next meeting. Judy Downs said Fred Shepard with the Trust for Public Lands can help with land acquisition. Status Update and Genetics-Research proposal presented by Alan Pepper, Jim Manhart Alan Pepper and James Manhart presented their information on an application for research funding to continue study of Spiranthes parskii. They have requested $125,000 in Section 6 funds from TPW for a three-year research grant. Committee members discussed the possibility ofusing NFWF funds. USFW personnel will follow up on the possibility. The proposed research would examine the evolutionary origin of S. parksii and its relationship to S. cemua complex using D A analysis of microsatellite markers. These are highly variable and useful for decteting within-and between-population variation. They would like to sample over 3 years with all accessible populations. Can sample and get genetic profile of each individual; then can determine whether same individual flowers in consecutive years. Questions to be answered include: Breeding system and gene flow within and between species What constitutes a viable population? GIS work: what is ecological amplitude of habitat? Link GIS and genetic data. This information will be used to update the recovery plan and is important to conservation and preserve design. Saving 2-3 large populations may not capture the species' genetic diversity. In many species the diversity is at the edges of the range. Need to know genetic structure before developing preserve design. James Thomas commented that GIS and genetics is the key to future of the species. Judy Downs commented that it is necessary to start acquiring preserve land now (even though genetics not known) with growth as rapid as is happening. Discussed TxDOT's 8 acre mitigation site south of the Texas Speedway and need for management plan. Dana Price suggested that TxDOT prepare an RFP to complete habitat management research at the site. Karen Clary agreed to pursue the matter as well as the 40 acre Crowley mitigation site. Discussion followed on the different habitat manipulations as well as what base data is available. Hugh Wilson said the site was a woodland when first surveyed. e Station Recovery Meeting, July 5th, 2001 .wpd Representing Agencies/Institutions: College Station Meeting for the recovery of Navasota ladies'-tresses (Spiranthes parksii) AGENDA July 5th, 2001 US Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Austin, Texas Army Corp of Engineers Texas Department of Transportation Texas Parks and Wildlife Department City of College Station Texas A & M University I. Goals/Outcomes of College Station Meeting: • Update all participants of past and current monitoring (or lack there of) ofnumber of population, number of individuals in each population, number of populations that have been extirpated. • Discuss current biological parameters including phenology and life history. Identify heaviest impact sites (development, grazing, mining, parks) for the next 5 -10 years. Identify possible habitat preservation sites for existing populations. Establish a working group to continue plans and efforts outlined at this meeting. Identify possible key issues, objectives, and deadlines for the working group. 10:30am Charmaine Delmatier, USFWS, Austin, why we're here at the meeting. Current communications. NFWFFunds. 10:50 am Hugh Wilson, T AMU, historical journey of Sprianthes parksii. Page 1 'I I' e Station Recovery Meeting, July 5th, 2001 .wpd 11 :00 am 11 :10 am 11 :20 am 11 :30am 12:45pm 3:00pm Dana Price, TPWD, extant and extirpated populations, up to 2001 . Karen Clary, TxDOT, regional planning, in lieu funds. City of College Station, Development Dept., future development plans. LUNCH Discussion to establish working group and the goals listed above . Meeting adjourns. II I Notes from a Navasota ladies' -tresses (Spiranthes parksii) meeting July 5, 2001 1300 George Bush Drive, College Station, Texas Attendees: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS): Charmaine Delmatier, Jenny Wilson, Nathan Allen. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD): Dana Price, Paul Robertson. City of College Station: Judy Downs, Natalie Ruiz, Molly Hitchcock, Peter Vanecek, Jennifer Nations. Texas A&M University (TAMU): Hugh Wilson, Fred Smeins, James Manhart, Jane Packard. Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT): Karen Clary, Michael Carpenter. CSC Engineering and Environmental Consultants: Stephen Swetish, Rick Conlin. Private/ Native Prairies Association of Texas: Lori Biederman Introduction by Charmaine Delmatier (CD), USFWS Botanist: Thank you for attending. This meeting was called to share information on current research and scientific endeavors. There is a USFWS account for the recovery and restoration of Navasota ladies' -tresses (NLT) at the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF). The following individuals gave these summaries: • CD and Jenny Wilson (Austin USFWS biologist) provided a distribution map ofNLT, which included vegetation cover. This was based on work completed by David Diamond and Diane True under contract for the USFWS. • Hugh Wilson (HW), TAMU; historical summary ofNLT. • Dana Price (DP), TPWD; extant and extirpated NLT populations as of2001. Dana provided a distribution map of extant and extirpated populations as well as a spreadsheet of known populations. • Karen Clary (KC), TxDOT; regional growth approach with in lieu funds . • City of College Station; City's current and future involvement. HW: Lick Creek Park (515 acres) could be one of the possible target sites for long-term habitat management. Need to look at possibly limiting or denying horse traffic. DP: There is only one population over 1,000 plants. 28of136 known populations have been documented to be extirpated (primarily these are sites that were mined). City of Colege Station: City has $3.6 million to purchase greenways/open space for "priority greenway acquisition" under extraterritorial jurisdiction lands (ETJ). Need to develop text/wording to be included in Greenways Master Plan. City and TAMU: might consider a liaison between city, TAMU, and agencies. The Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) was invited but was not able to attend this particular meeting. Will attempt to attend future meetings. ' For the next meeting, the following agenda items have been suggested: * * * * * Potential land acquisition sites Mapping and monitoring needs regional and programmatic planning by TxDOT/USFWS continued city involvement/strategy define measurable results * conservation strategy: identify selection criteria for 2 safe sites (according to priority of the Recovery Plan) and discuss preserve design. Next meeting Date: Jan. 23, Wed. Locations: same place, 1300 George Bush Dr., across from the TAMU golf course, Room 106. The Conservation Action Grant replaces both the Horned Lizard Conservation License Plate Grant Program and the State Wildlife Grant. This new program funds projects that benefit rare species and species in need of conservation through grants for habitat improvement, wildlife education programs, and applied research projects. In Fiscal Year 2003 there is $700,000 in grant funds for the above projects, with a suggest proposal dollar amount of $10,000 to $35,000. Applicants are expected to provide a 1 :1 match for all funds requested in cash or in-kind matching supplies and services. The deadline for Conservation Action Grant proposals is January 13, 2003. CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Pat Morton -Texas Parks & Wildlife Department EPA contact for Region 6 Jo Taylor U.S. EPA, Region 6 4200 Smith School Road -Austin, TX 78744 -(512) 912-7011 Environmental Education Grants (6XA) 1445 Ross Avenue Dallas, TX 75202 taylor.jo@epa.govv ::&-EPA :~ United States Environmental Protection Agency . . . .. . . .. •. ••.;I '· ;.·· ··.:::. .. Environmental Education Grant Program Introduction The Environmental Education Grant Program was csrablishcd undcr Section 6 of the National Environmental Education Act of 1990. The goal of the program is to support environmental cducation (EE) projects that enhance the publi c's awareness, knowledge, and skills to make informed and rcsporniblc decisions that affect environmental quality. To be considered EE, a project must be based on sound science and promote environmental stewardship. The project must enhance critical-thinking, problem-solving, and effective decision-making skills, as well as teach individuals to weigh various sides of an environmental issue to make informed and responsible decisions. Environmental education docs not advocate a particular viewpoint or course of action. Project Funding Since fiscal year (FY) 1992, Congress has annually appropriated almost $3 million to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to award EE grants. The competition for EE grams is considerable, and about 200 grants arc funded annualJy from among more than 1,000 applications received. Grants arc awarded by either EPA Headquarters or regional offices as determined by the cost of the grant. EPA's current educational priorities ore for projeck thot: f 1 (1) build state capacity to deliver environmental Grants of $50,000 or less arc awarded by EPA's 10 regional offices and these grants make up the vast majority of grants issued. As mandated by Congress, a significant number of grants must be awarded by the regional offices for small grassroots projects. Grams for more than 50,000 arc awarded bv EPA Hcadquartcrs in Washington, D.C.; 12 arc usually issued each year. Grants issued by Headquarters usually range between $85,000 and $100,000. education programs (2) use EE to advance state education reform goals (3) improve teaching skills (4) educate the public through community-based organizations (5) educate teachers, health professionals, community leaders, and the public about human health threats from pollution, c.spccially as it affects children (6) promote environmental careers Matching Funds Grantees must provide non-Federal matching funds of at least 25% of the total cost of the grant project. The match may be provided by the grant applicant or by a partner organization. The match mav be cash or in- kind contributions, such as salaries paid to the project managers and equipment purchased for the project. Eligible Organizations Colleges a.nd universities, local and tribal education agencies, state education or environmental agencies, not- fo r-profit organizations, and non-commercial educational broadcasting entities arc eligible to apply for funds under the program. Grantees arc located in all 50 United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and other U.S. Territories. Solicitation Notice Each year EPA issues a Solicitation Noti ce that describes the application procedures and grant priorities for that year and contains all the necessary appli cation forms. The Solicitation Notice is published in the Fedeml Register and is also avai lable on line at the web site below. Grant writing tips, and other EE grant information, including descriptions of grants issued by state, also arc provided on this web site. Evaluation Process Grant applications arc evalu ated in a two-step process that involves participation by EE expem outside of EPA at the first level of review. In general, the first ranking is done by non-federal reviewers from schools, Usual grant schedule* Solicitation Notice August or September Applications due Mid-November Evaluation process December -April Grants awarded May-June Projects implemented Ju ly at the earliest The schedule for the current year is specified in the Solicitation Notice each year. universities, state education agencies, and not-for- profit organi zations. The second level of review is conducted by EPA, and the factors listed below mav be considered prior to the awards being approved by EPA's Regional Administrators or bv Headquarters. Grant Writing Tips Below arc several helpful tips to remember during the grant writing process. For more specific tips on grant writing, please refer to EPA's ''Tips for Developing Successful Grant Applications," which is available onlinc at1V1JJJP.epa.goilje11JJiroed/gnmttips.html. • Carefully fo llow the instructions in the Solicitation Notice • Write clearly and concisely • Price the project competiti vely • Identify measurable results Factors considered in making final selections include: • • cost-effectiveness effectiveness of collaboration and partnerships • environmental or educational importance of the project • effectiveness of delivery metJ10ds • methods for evaluating and improving project • measurable rcsuJts • geographic distribution of projects Additional inforrnation about the EE grant program is available online at: Office of Public Affairs Office of Environmental Education (1704 A) www.epa.gov/enviroed 0 1· contact Diane Bew er 01· Sheri] ojokian at: (202) 564-04 51 EPA-171-F-04-002 November 2004 TPWD: Community Outdoor Outreach Grant Program Page I of 3 TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE TPWD Home \ Contact Us \ Search Print Friendly General Information: Eful!ble Participan_ts El_igible _Proje~ts P_riority Criteria Review_Pr:ocess De_adlines EnabllngJ,_egi_:;latj~>n TRPA Manual Summer Grant-Writing Workshop~ Download PDF AJiplication (PDF ~~.U KB) Downloag_Ms-Word ~JU~!ication I (Word .5.?.~. KB) Co-Op Partners: Texas Buffalo Soldiers ExQloring Texas Roots Blazin New Trails Project WILD Rare & WILD Outdoors Woman Texas Natu_re Trackers Texas Master Naturalists TPWD Education Division TPWD Wildscapes Outdoor Kids Program TPWD Grants E-Mail Newsletter: Receive e-mails with news, updates, and deadline information about TPWD grant programs . Enter your e-mail address below : I SUBMIT I Links for Approved Projects : Parks & Historic Sites - Recreation Grants Branch Community Outdoor Outreach Program Purpose To build relationships with non- traditional constituencies who have been underrepresented in Texas Parks & Wildlife activities and programs. About This Grant Program This program is authorized by the Texas State Legislature in the Texas Parks & Wildlife appropriation budget as a specialized component of the Texas Recreation and Parks Account Program (TRPA). Approximately $800,000 has been set aside annually to be used to help introduce under-served constituents to the services, programs, and facilities of Texas Parks & Wildlife. Distribution of Funds The minimum amount to be awarded to eligible applicants is $5,000 and the maximum amount is $30,000. These moneys will be distributed through grants to eligible organ izations on a reimbursement basis. Who is Eligible to Participate Non-profit groups, non-political groups, local governments, religous groups, and other tax-exempt organizations. Types of Eligible Projects • Outdoor Education • Outdoor Recreation Programs and Skills (i.e., Camping, Hunting, Boating, Fishing) • Wildlife/Nature/Environmental Education • Youth-at-Risk • Historical/Cultural Heritage http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/grants/coop/ 61712005 TPWD: Community Outdoor Outreach Grant Program Page 2 of 3 Reimbursements: Reimbursement Information Allowable ExQenses Submitting Reimbursements ~Qorting Pocument(iJ_i_on EiHable_EC>rl!1$ Seed 1'1P_nie!ii Status Reports: Quarterly Status ReQorts ReQorts Format .&. (PDF .1.~} KB) Alternate Reports Format .&.cword :'1.2.:.?. KB) Evaluations: f_yalu_aJiQn_J!l~1.r.J.1~ti2..r1s Plank E..Y~ll!-~_1ion Form .&.(PDF 1.1.} KB) Fillable Evaluation Form .&. (PDF .3.'.'I.}. KB) TPWD Grant Programs : TPWD Grants & Assistance Page I.BPA Gra_n.t_Programs Outdoor Recreation Grants Indoor Recreation Grants Small Community Grants Recreation Trail Grants Outreach Grants Regiona!_e_~_r.~ __ G_r_ant~ Boat Ram.Q._(ir~nts Boat Sewag~~!!ll!out Grants Wildlife Conservation Grants Local Assistance Program Other Grant Links: .. I exa s _ _Q_!J_:_bJ.n_g .S_t!!.~GL~nt!ii __ I~<i_f!l IRAIL Gr~nJ __ Se_Ci_!:Ch Engine US Fish & Wildlife Service Grants National Park Service Grants • •~ r:----~ c--··•-- • Recreation Safety Priority Criteria for Awards • Number of participants served • Number of partnerships to meet project goals • Relationship to TPWD program/facilities/personnel • Outdoor Education/Curriculum • Activities Related to TPWD Initiatives • Projects providing service to: o Ethnic Minority Participants o Youth Participants o Low-income Participants o Rural or Urban Participants o Female Participants o Persons with Physical or Mental Disabilities o Youth at-Risk Deadlines October 1st and March 1st each year. Award Dates December 15th and May 15th each year. Download a PDF copy of the Communit~ Outdoor Outreach Pro_gram Grant Application here. (PDF ~9..2.J KB) Download an MS-Word copy of the Community Ou_tdoor Outreach Program Grant Ap_glication here. 1 (Word .5.~~ KB) About the TRPA Program The Texas Recreation and Parks Account (TRPA) is funded through a portion of sales tax on select sporting good items. TRPA is administered by TPWD's Recreation Grants Branch and funds five grant programs. These grant programs include: the Outdoor Recreation Grant Program, Indoor Recreation Grant Program, Small Community Grant Program, Regional Park Grant Program, and the Community Outdoor Outreach Program. The guidelines for each program have been approved by the Parks & Wildlife Commission after a series of public hearings and publication in the Texas Register. For More Information Contact: Darlene Lewis -Texas Parks and Wildlife -4200 Smith School Road - http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/grants/coop/ 61712005 TPWD: Community Outdoor Outreach Grant Program Page 3of3 Grants ~on-Profit Res_ourJ;:e Center Texas R~c._&_eark Society National Rec. & Park Assoc. Americans for Our Heritage & Rec. Austin, TX 78744 -(512) 912-7145 Dana Lagarde -Texas Parks and Wildlife -4200 Sm ith School Road - Austin, TX 78744 -(512) 912-7056 TPWD Grant News and Deadlines: COMING SOON ... AUTOMATED GRANT NEWS AND DEADLINE INFORMATION! Additional Information: Download a PDF copy of the Community Outdoor Outrea~h Program Grant Application here. (PDF ~9.?.:! KB) Download an MS-Word copy of the Communit~ Outdoor Outreach Program Grant Application here. 1 (Word .?~~-KB) If you have problems downloading the application: use the mouse to right click over the link, choose "save target as," and then save the file to a folder of your choice. Saving PDF Forms: The free Adobe Acrobat Reader ® allows you to view, print and save blank PDF forms from the website, however, it does not allow you to save any of your filled-in forms. Click here to download the Adobe Reader ®. Back to TopA Please send comments, suggestions, or questions to: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, Texas 78744 or send us an e-mail. Home I Hy_nting I Fishing I Boating I Parks & Historic Sites I Nature I Education I Jq_bs Conservation I Kids' Page I Publicct_tions I Texas Water I Site Policies I About TPWD Expo I FAQ I Game Warden I 8.elated Sites I Outd_o_or: _ _programs I WMAs ©Copyright Texas Parks & Wildlife Department Last modified: November 9, 2004, 8:36 am http://www. tpwd.state. tx. us/grants/coop/ 61712005 Endangered Species, Private Stewardship Program endangered red-cockaded woodpecker, USFWS photo Search Sgecies Information Laws Policies and Federal Register Notices ESA & What We Do •Candidate Conservation • Consultations •Grants •HCPs •International Activities •Landowner Tools •Listing •Perm its • Publications •Recovery • Working with Tribes Contacts in Your Area Kid's Corner Partners in Conservation U.S . Fish & Wildlife Service Private Stewardship Grants Program FY2005 The Private Stewardship Program provides grants and other assistance on a competitive basis to individuals and groups engaged in local, private, and voluntary conservation efforts that benefit federally listed , proposed, or candidate species, or other at-risk species. Diverse panels of representatives from State and Federal government, conservation organizations, agriculture and development interests, and the science community assess applications and make recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior, who awards the grants. The Private Stewardship Program was initiated during Fiscal Year 2002, with grants first awarded during FY 2003. (Our fiscal year runs from October 1 through the following September 30.) For Fiscal Year 2004, the Service awarded more than $7 million in Federal funding under the Private Stewardship Program. A ten percent (10%) match of cash or through in-kind contributions is required. The program is available to private landowners and their partners. See the full text of the program announcement below for detailed information on the eligibility criteria. (Please note: To view PDF documents, you may need to download and install the Adobe Reader, free from Adobe Inc.) FY 2005 Request for Proposals - We are accepting grant proposals for the FY 2005 funding period between January 18 , 2005 and March 21 , 2005. (Please note: To view PDF documents, you may need to download and install the Adobe Acrobat Reader, free from Adobe, Inc.) uest for ered http:// endangered. fws. gov I grants/private_ stewards hi pf index.html 61712005 · "' Endangered Species, Private Stewardship Program Page 2 of2 uestions? Glossary U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service h_ome page P-'f zoq<; PUVltl~ f ([ .1 vtt,i l liiYvG •Archive of Private Stewardshi rants information ecies Pro •Federal Aid Tool Kit (forms and compliance requirements for receiving Federal grants) Contact Us For more information on how to apply for Federal grants to assist landowners in conserving species on non-Federal lands, please contact the Private Stewardshi Grant Pro ram re resentative at our Re ional Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or contact: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Consultation, Habitat Conservation Planning, Recovery and State Grants 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 420 Arlington, VA 22203 703-358-2061 The Service also offers many other grant programs that may also benefit endangered and threatened species. For other grant program information, go to htt :// rants.fws. ov . [back to tqp) Our Web Policies and Privac Statement Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Visit FirstGov.gov for easy, one-stop access to all online U.S. Federal Government resources. f1!J wi. r-tfifltrvl rtj l tJVl ti I http://endangered.fws.gov/grants/private _stewardship/index.html 61712005 Incentive and Grants Programs •The Private Stewardship P rogram ($9.9M) provides grants and other assistance on a competitive basis to individuals and groups engaged in local, private, and voluntary conservation efforts that benefit federally listed, proposed, or candidate species, or other at-risk-species. A diverse panel of representatives from State and Federal government, conservation organizations, agriculture and development interests, and the science community assess applications and make recommendations to the Secretary of the Interim; who awards the grants. •The Cooperative E ndangered Species Conservation und (section 6 of the ESA) provides funding ($80.5M) to States and Territories to participate in a wide aiTay of conservation projects on non- Federal lands for candidate, proposed and listed species. States and Territories must contribute 25% of the estimated program costs of approved projects, or 10% when two or more States or Territories implement a joint project. A State or Territory must enter into a cooperative agreement with the Service to receive grants. Most States and Territories have entered into these agreements for both plant and animal species. For FY 2003, fu nding ;viii be available to implement conservation projects for listed and species at risk (Conservation Grants $7.5M); integrating habitat conservation into local land use planning through development of Habitat Con ervation Plans (Habitat Conseroation Planning Assistance Grants $6.6M); furthering species conservation through acquisition ofland and easements associated with approved Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP L and Acquisition Grants $51.lM); and acquiring lands essential to the recovery oflisted species (R ecovery LandAcquisition (}rants $12.7M). Looking Ahead By building strong partnerships and initiating eai·ly and collaborative conservation efforts, the Service can best achieve the purpose of the Endangered Species Act to conserve endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Contact Us Want 11wre information on a particular endangered species or to enter into a pw·tne1·ship with us? Please contact the Regional Office which ha,ridles the State(s) in which you are interested. If they can not helv you, they will gladly direct you to the nearest local S ervice office or in the direction you need. Washington D.C. Office Endangered Species 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 420 Arlington, VA 22203 http://endangered.fws.gov Chief, Division of Conservation and Classification: Christine Nolin, 703/.3.58 2171 Chief, Division of Consultation, HCPs, Recove1y, and State Grants: Patrick Leonard, 7031358 2171 Chief, Division of Partnerships and Outreach: Claire Cassel, 703t358 2390 Region One -Pacific E ast.side Federal Complex 911 N.E . 11th Avenue Portland OR 97232-4181 http://pacific.fws.gov Chief, Division of Endangered Species: Wendi Weber, 503/231 6158 Region Two -Southwest P.O. Box 1306, Rm 4012 Albuquerque, NM 87102 http://southwest.fws.gov EndangeredSpecies Chief, Division of Endange1·ed Species: Acting Suai't Leo n, 505(248 6657 Region Three -Great Lakes, Big Rivers Bishop Henry Federal Building One Federal Drive Ft. Snelling, MN 55111-4056 http://midwest.fws.gov Chief, Ecological Services Operations: T. J. Mille1; 612/713 5334 Regional Office Boundaries Region Four -Southeast 1875 Centwy Boulevard Suite200 Atlanta, GA 30345 http://southeast.fws.gov ~ Pueno Rico&• -._· U.S. Virgin lsl1nds Region 4 Chief, Endangered Species: Gloria Bell, 404/679 7100 Region Five -Northeast 300 Westgate Center Drive Hadley, MA 01035-9589 http://northeast.fws.gov Chief, Division of Endangered Species: Paul Nickerson, 413/253 8615 Region Six -Mountain Prairie 134 Union Boulevard Lakewood CO 80228 http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov Division of Ecological Se1'Vices: Jill Parke1~ 303/236 7 400 Ext. 242 Region Seven -Alaska 1011 E. Tudor Road Anchorage, AK 99503-6199 http://alaska.fws.gov Division of Endange1·ed Species: Sue Detwiler, 907n86 3868 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species Program 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 420 Arlington, VA 22203 703/358 2390 http://endangered.fws.gov May 2003 The Endangered Species Program conserves endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. As of May 2003, there were 1,263 U.S. species listed as endangered or threatened, 249 candidate species and 36 species proposed for listing. Conserving endangered and threatened species is necessary to preserve our natural heritage for future generations and to maintain our quality oflife. Conserving ecosystems benefits all users of ecosystem resources and is essential to maintaining our nation's long term economic prosperity. Our Program's priorities are: • Preventing extinction. •Recovering species that are listed. • Making listing species unnecessary. •Providing quality customer service to Federal, State, and local governments and private individuals to assist them in conserving endangered species •vhile meeting their social and economic objectives. Endangered Species Program Elements • Through the Candidate Conservation program, the Service, in partnership with public agencies, private organizations, and landowners, works to reduce the threats to declining species, and thus avoid listing. By acting early before a species becomes imperiled, the Service can reduce the costs of recovery and maintain land use flexibility for landowners. • Through the Listing program, the Service follows Federal rulemaking procedures and specific E A requirements to determine whether to list a species. A formal peer review process and an opportunity for public comment ensure that the Service obtains the best available scientific information to support its decisions. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Our Endangered Species Program and How It Works With Landowners When necessary, essential species habitat is protected through a critical habitat designation at the time of or soon after listing. Once listed, the species is afforded the full range of protections available under the ESA. These protections include prohibitions on killing, harming or otherwise taking a species as well as restrictions on import/export to prevent trade-related declines. •Through the Consultation program, the Service works \vith private land0Wl1ers and other non-Federal entities to develop Habitat Conservation Plans that authorize the incidental take of listed species. The HCP process allows private economic development to proceed while promoting listed species conservation. Also through this program, the Service works with other Federal agencies to ensure that their activities and the activities they authorize are compatible with species needs. • Through the Recovery program, the Service develops partnerships with Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes, researchers, conservation organizations, businesses, landowners, and individuals to conserve listed species. Recovery efforts include a •vide range of management actions, such as controlled propagation and habitat protection and restoration, that reduce threats or otherwise benefit populations so they will stabilize and ultimately increase. A species is considered for delisting once it recovers to the point where it no longer needs the ESA's special protections. Assistance to Landowners According to a 1993 study by the Association for Biodiversity Information and The Nature Conservancy, half oflisted species have at Endangered species a.re defined by the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as those species that are in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of their range. Threatened species are those species that m·e likely to become endangered within the foreseeable.future. least 80% of their habitat on private lands. Because oflisted species' dependence on p1ivate lands, p1ivate landowner paiticipation in endangered species conservation is critical to successful species recovery. Several programs provide mechanisms for increased cooperation with private landowners, tribes, State and local governments, industry, and agricultural . interests: (\ilJt {ll(ltvl •The Safe Harbor Policy encourages l,.V\C~Vlft V l5 voluntary management for listed species to promote recovery on non- Federal lands by giving assurances to the landowners that no additional future regulatory restrictions will be imposed. • The Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances PoJicy provides incentives for non-Federal property owners to conserve candidate species, thus potentially making listing unnecessai·y. • Habitat Conservation Planning allows private landowners to develop land supporting listed species provided they undertake conservation measures. The No Surprises Policy assures participating landowners that they will incur no additional mitigation requirements beyond those they agreed to in their Habitat Conservation Plans, even if circumstances change. ~==~~:::::;;:~-~~~LI;;;;::~~;;::;::~~ Part I. Recovery Plan Background + Status/Description ffaxonomy +Distribution/Population Trends +Life mstory/Ecology <·Habitat Characteristics +Critical Habitat +Reasons for Listing +Ongoing Conservation Efforts • +Biological Constraints and Needs • [Update of all research and management since last revision] ~~~;:;;:=~1~~,E=:~~~~ Part II. Recovery Plan Recovery • Strategy for Recovery • Goals, Objectives and Criteria • Step-down Outline •Narrative Outline Goals, Objectives, and Criteria ·:·The goal is usually to reclassify or delist a species based on specific criteria. •:•The objectives are broad statements about the recovery needs for a specific species ·:· The criteria are the objective and measurable measures by which you identify whether the objectives have been met. .... 9 ,. Interim objectives: <-Can be used in rare cases where delisting and downlisting goals are not determinable. <-Are generally immediate goals needed to prevent extinction of the species. <-Should address how to obtain information necessary for developing a complete recovery program (delisting criteria). <-Can also be intermediate goals that measure recovery progress. Recovery Criteria ·:·Criteria are the specific measures that are used to determine when a species has met the objectives and can be downlisted or delisted. ·:·Criteria should be objective and measurable but not necessarily simply numerical. ·:· Criteria, in the face of uncertainty, can include confidence intervals, etc. ESA, section 4(1)(IXB)(ii) Recovery Actions In general, recovery actions fall within certain familiar categories, such as: <• habitat conservation and restoration <-research <-surveys & monitoring . <-population management (reintroduction I disease or predator control) <-regulatory compliance 10 Monitoring ... afocal point Population: to meet recovery criteria Threats: intensity and level Tasks: implementation Post-de listing ~=~::;;;:;=~;;;j~ c:::I" ~ II Step-down Outline/Narrative Outline of Recovery Actions Generally arranged in "step-down" format, e.g. I. Secure habitat and manac• populaUons I.I Manac• and monitor populations wlthla X Wattrshtd I.I.I. Manac• populaUoDJ within X Waltrshtd I.I.I.I. Updalt X Wattnhtd Flshtria Met. Flan 1.1.1.2. Dtvtlop habitat manactmtnt plans with wtwac landownen 1.1.1.2.1. Contact landowntn with polmtlal habitat 1.1.1.2.2. Dtvtlop plaDJ 1.1.1.2.3. lmpltmtnl Flans 1.1.2 Monitor populaUons within X Wattnhtd 1.2 Manace ind monitor populations within Y watenhed F::=~~::;:;;;;;;i1~ I::d l~~~=~ Part III. Recovery Plan Implementation Schedule ·:· Composed of "innermost" actions from stepdown/narrative outlines ·:· Provides the basis for tracking implementation ·:·Establishes management priorities ·:· Identifies potential responsible parties, but does not obligate participation ·:· Is used to secure funds 11 I ~=~~::::::;;;:;~-~~ :r::J!~~~=~ Implementation Task Priorities ·:· Priority 1 -actions that must be taken to prevent extinction or irreversible decline ·:· Priority 2 -actions that must be ·taken to prevent significant decline/adverse impact short of extinction ·:· Priority 3 -all other actions needed for full recovery List of Reviewers of Recovery Plan ·:·Per 1994 policy, Services are directed to "actively solicit independent peer review during the development of draft recovery plans" in order to: <-obtain all pertinent available data <· review data relating to the selection or implementation of specialized recovery tasks ·:·Also directed to summarize reviewers' opinions in the final plan '·,,,, l..~ ?"" J'..,. • , • • • .... - -. ~ :.*' ::' . ~ "'"_. --~~"' ' &\, • • • • 12 1 ' J NAVASOTA LADIES'-TRESSES (Spiran th es .Par ks ii) RECOVERY PLAN U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Albuquerque, New Mexico 1984 ,;: RECOVERY PLAN FOR THE NAVASOTA LADIES'-TRESSES Spiranthes parksi1 Correll Prepared by: Or. Hugh D. Wilson Assistant Professor Department of Biology Texas A&M University and Gey at a Aj i 1 vsgi Herbarium Botanist Department of Biology Texas A&M lkliversity For: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2 DATE: ~{ /{tf ( SUr+1ARY Goal: To remove the Navasota ladies'-tresses from the Federal list of endangered and threatened species by protecting the existing populations and their habitat ·from present and future human and natural threats. · Recovery Criteria: Criteria for the downlisting of the Navasota ladies'-tresses are based on the establishment and maintenance of two safe sites for the species. lhese sites would contain a large proportion of the known individuals of Spiranthes parksii. Because of the continuing nature of the threats to this species and the small numbers and limited range of the spe- cies, cont1nu1ng protection will be necessary and it is unlikely that delisting will be feasible for the Navasota ladies'-tresses in the foreseeable future. Action Needed: Major steps needed to meet the recovery criteria in- clude: establishment of two safe sites; preparation and implementation of management plans for those sites; alleviation of threats to the species on those sites; monitoring of existing populations; search for new populations; and research on the spe- cies, its ecological needs, its taxonomy, and its biology. i DISCLAIMER This is the completed Navasota Ladies'-T~esses Recovery Plan. It has been approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It does not neces- sarily represent off1cial positions or approvals of cooperating agencies and it does not necessarily represent the views of all ind1v1duals who played a key role in preparing this plan. lh1s plan is subject to modi- fication as dictated by new findings and changes in species status and completion of· tasks described in the plan. Goals and objectives will be attained and funds expended contingent upon appropr1at1ons, priorities, and other budgetary constraints. Literature citation should read as follows: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Navasota Ladies'-Tresses Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. iii + 61 pp. Additional copies may be obtai ned from: Fish and Wildlife Reference Service 1776 E. Jefferson Street Maryland 20852 4th Floor Rockv11 le, Telephone: (301) 468-1737 Ext. 326 or 290 Toll Free -1 {800} 582-3421 ii .. ~ ..•. .:.. .... Part I. Part II. Part III. Appendix TABLE OF CONTENTS SuR111ar y. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i 01scl aimer ••••• .......................................... 1i Introduction Taxonomy ••••••••. ................................... 2 Morphology ••••••• ................................... 3 Distribution •••••••••• ................................... 4 Land Ownership •••••••• ................................... 9 Habitat .•••......•...........•.....•.........•..........• 10 Population Biology ••• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Demography •••••.•••••••• Phenology ••••••••••••••• . ................... . Associated Species •••••••••••••••• ~···················· Impacts and lllreats ..•.•..•••••••••• ..................... Human Modification of the Habitat. ..................... Co 11ect1 ng •.••.•.••••.••••••••••••••.••..••••..•••••••• Artificial Maintenance of the Habitat ••.••••••••.•••••• Recovery Objective •• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Step-down Outline •• Narrative •••••••.••••• Literature Cited •••••• Implementation Schedule ••••• ............................. list of Reviewers ••• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conrnents Received •••••• 11 11 14 14 16 16 19 19 21 22 25 39 41 45 46 Responses to Conments .............••...........•....•...• 60 1ii PART I Introduction Spiranthes parksii Correll, the .Navasota ladies'-tresses, was listed .... as endangered on May 6, 1982 (47 FR 19539). No other mem~~rs of this orchid genus are listed; however, l· lanceolata var. paludicola and~ polyantha, located in Florida, the Caribbean, and Central America, are in the 1980 Notice of Review (45 FR 82480) and 1ts 1983 Supplement (48 FR 53640) as candidate taxa. Spiranthes parksii was originally described by Correll (1947) from material collected by H. B. Parks in 1945. The location associated with Parks' specimens was "Democrat bridge," a well known collecting locality on the floodplain of the Navasota River in northern Brazos County, Texas. Thus, the plant was believed to inhabit alluvial sites •along the Navasota River• (Correll and Johnston, 1970). However, subsequent attempts to locate the plant (Luer, 1975) were not successful until 1978. The •redis- covery• of l· parks11 (Catling and Mcintosh, 1979) demonstrated that the plant is a unique inhabitant of upland Post Oak Savanna in Brazos County. A 1982 survey (unpublished data) by Dr. Hugh Wilson located approxi- mately 100 individual plants at four sites in Brazos County, Texas. Dur- ing the 1983 field season (Wilson and Ajilvsgi, 1983), 1,816 individual plants were observed scattered throughout Brazos, Grimes, Burleson, and Robertson Counties, Texas. 2 Although there has been an increase in· abundance and range, the species is still highly vulnerable because of current and projected development of oil and lignite deposits and light industry, urban encroachment, collection by orchid fanciers, and natural modification of habitat via succession. The objective of this report is to outline· a plan for facilitating the recovery of Spiranthes parksii, principally by the establishment and maintenance of two safe sites. Survival of · the species and ultimately the removal of the species fran endangered status is the intention of the recovery plan. The plan incorporates recommendations on protection, management, and research provided by scientists and laymen over the past five years. Taxonomy Spiranthes parks1i 1s unusual, possibly unique, anong species of the genus in that the taxon has not been altered with regard to rank or circ1.111scription since the original description (Correll, 1947). This, perhaps, can be attributed to its rarity, although specialists tend to stress the disti~ctive aspect of this species. Correll and Johnston (1970) indicate that floral characters •conveniently separate this species . . . 3 from all other species of Spiranthes found in Texas." Recent exami nation of living plants (Catling and Mcintosh-, 1979) indicates that~· parksii is a "very distinctive species." While S. parksii is clearly defined as a taxonomic species, its association with other elements of the genus is not clear at the present time. Correll 's (1950) suggestion of linkage with _tropical American orchids is not a likely possibility. Following Schlechter's (1920) classification of the genus, this connection would link i. parksii with taxa that are placed in other genera (Sheviak, pers. COlllll.). On the basis of a recent, biosystematic study, there can be little doubt that S ~ parksii is clearly within Spiranthes s. str., possibly associated with the 1· cernua complex of species (Sheviak, 1982). Preliminary elect~ophoretic work (Walters and Wilson, 1982) also indicates the possible association of S. parksii with the 1· cernua complex. Morphology . . . The genus Spiranthes is composed of terrestrial herbs with clustere~ tuberous or rarely fibrous roots. The basal leaves are variable in shape, ranging from broadly ovate to elliptic, or absent at flowering. The flowering sten carries persistent, sheathing bracts. Flowers, arranged in 4 a more or less spirally twisted, showy or · inconspicuous terminal spike, are typically a shade of white. As is the case with the orchid family, flowers consist of three ~pa l s, three petals, and a central coJ.umn. The lower petal or "lip" is morphologically differentiated from the two lat er al petals. Spiranthes parks11 is an erect, slender stemmed perennial up to 30 cm tall; leaves mostly ~asal, linear, usually absent when flowering; inflo- rescence a slender, solitary spike of small flowers surrounded by conspic- uously white-tipped bracts; petals rounded or ovate with a green central stripe; lateral petals conspicuously shorter than the sepals; lip margin distinctly ragged (Mahler, 1980). The most unusual characters for identification of 1· parksii in the field are the short, wide lateral petals, cream colored (rather than white) perianth, and a tendency for the floral bracts, and sometimes the $tem bracts to be white-tipped . A rough diagramatic comparison of S. parksii and its sympatric, fall flowering relatives is provided in Figures 1 and 2. Distribution Spiranthes parks1i has been found at 24 sites in Brazos, Grimes, Burleson, and Robertson Counties, Texas (Figure 3). These areas are ·: .,... •·"< .. J •, a. Plant, approximate natural size. 5 c. Sepals, lOx. d. Petals lOx. b. Flower, lOx, side view. Figure 1. Illustrat~on of!· parksii (Drawn by Jes~ica Proctor for the U.S. FWS) 6 d Figure 2. General mo~pholoqy of s. cernua as the species occurs in the Brazos County flora. Two forms are depicted, "woo~lan~" cer'hua (left side of page) and wbig" cernua (right side of page). Diagrams taken from (Sheviak~ 1982); "woodland" cernua actually a composite of figs. 20a {plcnt) and 19a,b,c,d (flower).. "Big" cernua tak~n fr0tn Sheviak's fig. 23. •• " .. .; .. '-: .s . . Figure 3. 7 nus <DJNlY OUTl.K ti# , ............. _. .................. ------- General distribution of Spiranthes parksii Correll, from 1982 and 1983 field surveys. 8 located in oak forested uplands associated ~ith the Navasota River and the Brazos River drainages. ... Data from the 1982 and 1983 field surveys (Wilson and Ajilvsgi, 1983) clearly demonstrate that l· parksii 1s most abundant over its known distribution in woodlands adjacent to Texas International Speedway (TIS) in Brazos County. It appears that the ·species was heavily impacted by construction of the speedway. The current center of l· parksii distribution within the TIS area is in woodlands and openings north of the speedway. The area supporting at least 41 percent (750 individuals) of the known S. parksii individuals is bounded by TIS on the south, State Highway 6 on the west, Alum Creek on the north, and the pipeline right-of-way on the east. The highest concentration of l· parksii within this area appears to be along the unnamed tributary flowing northward to Alum Creek, due north of the speedway. The 1983 field survey ex.tended the known range of distribution to the eastern uplands of the Navasota Valley in Grimes County. The relatively large population (400+ individuals) located just west of Carlos, Texas, represents a secondary center of plant density, nearly comparable to the populations inhabiting woodlands adjacent to TIS. This population contains approximately 22 percent of the known S. parksii individuals. In addition to these two centers of distribution, 1· parks11 was located as far east as Anderson, Texas (Grimes County). Scattered : .. .,,.. -! ·;') ~ ·...: --- ...J 9 1ndividuals were encountered several miles south of the TIS center along the western uplands of the Navasota Valley in Brazos County, and several miles west of State Highway 6 near the TIS area. llle 1983 field survey ... (Wilson and Ajilvsgi, 1983) also revealed populations associated with the Brazos River drainage; a few plants in southwestern Robertson County and 80 individuals occurring along the western slopes of the Brazos Valley in Burleson County. These data are certainly not complete. However, ~ile the detail of S. parksii distribution may change with additional survey work, it appears likely that the pattern reflected by these data will rema·in the same~· land Ownersh1 p All known populations of 1· parksi1 are located on privately owned land •. Information ·available at the present time concerning ownership of the two main centers of distr·ibution is provided below. Brazos Co. Primary center of distribution: Mr. J.W. McFarland Global Natural Resources Houston, Texas (713/224-9926) 10 Grimes Co. Secondary center~of distribution: Ms. Anne C. Teasdale (owner) Mr. Johnnie Churchwell (leasee) (409/873-2024) Hab'1tat Spiranthes parksi1 is clearly associated with the Post Oak Savanna vegetation type of east-central Texas. The plant has not been encountered in •natural" prairie sites or in mesic alluvial floodplains of the Navasota River or the Brazos River. Areas supporting the tl1ghest number of individuals are lightly wooded, lightly grazed, stream banks of minor • tributaries associated with the Navasota and Brazos drainages. As is the case with most species of the~· cernua complex, ~· parksi1 appears to be part of a successional conmun1ty (Sheviak, 1982). However, the association of essentially all known individuals with trees and shrubs, and the lack of individuals in cleared areas 1nd1cate that these plants focus on a late success1onal niche that occurs within an established woodland. Given its d1str1b~t1on, and the occurrence of endemism in east~central Texas, it is highly probable that l· parksi1 occupies a ... ·~ (i ~·, ·j .... ..... .... - .. j 11 unique habitat within the Post Oak Savanna. The paucity of available ecological data does not permit spec1fic habitat determination at this time. Population Biology Demography Thirty-one plants were marked during the 1982 field survey for further study. This will allow for relocation of individual plants at times other than the flowering period. In the 1983 field survey, 1,816 individuals were counted. Qased on previous field surveys, the survey teams feel they may have missed as much as 75 percent of the plants occurring in known populations. On this basis the estimated number of individuals could be as high as 5,448. The total estimated area of the known populations is approximately 4.5 km2. The number of individuals of i· parskii per unit is highly variable. During the 1982 and 1983 surveys, densities from as low as 2 individuals per 0.5 km2 to as high as 80 individuals per 10.S m2 were found. As is the case with most orchids, i. parksii produces thousands of tiny seeds per fruit. While it can be safely assumed that seeds are wind 12 dispersed, examination of actual seed disper-.sal and seedling establishment has not been accomplished. Given the microscopic size of both seeds and seedlings, this may not be "POSS i b 1 e. As indicated by Catling and Mcintosh (1979), 1· parksii is equipped, . in terms of floral structure, for insect pollination. However, the 1982 and 1983 surveys produced no records of insect visitors. In addition, it appears that i· parksii can develop seed without pollination. Catling and Mcintosh (1979) observed fruit set on flowers that had received no pollen. Seeds examined by Catling and Mcintosh (1979) and Sheviak (pers. conn.) are polyembryonic. Polyembryony in Spiranthes is associated with adventive development of embryos via mitotic division of sporophytic tissue in the seed (Sheviak, 1982; Swamy, 1948). Thus, reproduction in i· parksii could be asexual, al t hough the relationship between polyembryony and apomixis is not direct. Obviously, this important factor •, must be clarified by more detai led study. The age of plants before reproduction is also unknown. Botanists have been searchi ng for this plant for many years. The plant was first collected in 1947, and it was not relocated until 1978 when Catling and Mcintosh (1979 ) located 20 individual plants in two populations. In 1979, nine individual plants were observed by Mahler ' . ... .ir,·4 13 (1980). In 1982, 100 plants were located by Wilson and Ajilvsgi (unpublished data). The 1Q83 survey by.-Wilson and Aj1lvsgi resulted in 1,816 individual plants recorded from four counties in east-central Texas • ... The area has been screened on a small scale since 1978, and a concentrated •team• approach was used for the 1983 survey. The first indication that 1983 was an unusual year for the local Spiranthes species came in the spring when a large number of plants were observed in the "rosette• condition, i.e., in the photosynthetic stage of the life-cycle when the small leaves emerge. However, this took on no great significance_ at the time since the relationship between the number of photosynthetic plants (spring r_osettes) versus the number of plants actually flowering in the fall was not known. The second indicat~o~ came in the fall "'4len large numbers of both 1· cernua and 1· parksii were observed in areas that were closely searched in 1982 with only scattered individuals of both species present. Since the 1982 and 1983 field surveys represent the only detailed observations of the area, it is not known 1f this type of radical population fluctuation is. conmon. Since the plants appear to photosynthesize and grow only during the winter and spring nonths, it would seen that the causative variable could be a weather factor occurring between January and May. During this period in 1983, the weather was unus~ally cool {3.F below normal) and unusually h1gh rainfall (8 inches above normal) occurred. In addition, there were essentially no hard 14 frosts (lowest monthly temperature = 25.F)' during the 1983 winter. These conditions could have acted to promote unusually active vegetative growth and/or seedling establishm~t and thereby produced the abundanc~ __ of Spiranthes observed in the fall of 1983. · Phenology Navasota lad1es'~tresses bud from early to late October, flower from mid-October to mid-November, and form fruit from mid-October to the first frost (u.sually late November). Anthes1s and fruit formation occur in an indeterminate sequence from the base of the inflorescence to the tip. The fruit dehisces from mid-November to December and possibly January. Dormancy and other aspects of germination 1n the natural habitat is unknown. As is often the case with other orchids, a fungal associate may be involved. Or. Craig Nessler, Department of Biology, Texas A&M, has • genninated seeds in an artificial, sterile, tissue culture medium. Growth for about one year under these conditions produces seedlings approximately one cm. tall. Transplantation of these seedlings into 3" pots of various soil types under greenhouse conditions was not successful. Associated Species The following list of assoc i ated species was generated from the 1982 and 1983 field survey work (Wilson and Ajilvsgi, 1983) and observations of Catling and Mcintosh (1979): • ··lJ ~ .· .. · ~ .. -~ . . ... ~ . -~ ........ .....:· .. ·: - TREES Quercus stellata Wan~_. Q. nigra L. .!l.· marilandica Muenchh. Ulmus alata Michx. Celtis laevigata W111d. HERBS Hypoxis hirsuta (L.) Cov. Gaillard1a pulchella Fong. Gratiola flava leavenw. Claytonia virg1nica L. Viola triloba var. dilitata {Ell.) Brainard Baptisia leucophaea Nutt. Chaetopappa aster1odes {Nutt.) DC A111um drunmondii Regel. Monarda punctata L. Heterotheca graminifo11a _(Michx.) Shinners Oxalis violacea L. 15 SHRUBS llex vomitoria Ait. Forestiera ligustrina (Michx). Poir. Callicarpa americana L. Ascyrllll hypericoides L. Stillingia sylvatica L. linum medium (Planch.) Britt. var. texanum (Planch.) Fern. Heterotheca pilosa (Nutt.) Shinners Andropogon ternaris Michx. A. virginicus L. Muhlenbergia capillaris (Lam~) Trin. Paspalum setaceum Michx. Drosera annua E. L. Reed Pteracaulon virgatum {L.) DC Hedyotis crassifo11a Raf. Aigadenus nutta1111 Gray Ascl~p1as v1r1d1s Walt. Aster patens Ait. HERBS cont. Spiranthes gracilis (Bigel.~ Beck. var. gracilis ~· cernua (L.) Rich Heleastrum hemisphaericum (Alex .) Shinners Panicum brachyanthum Stued. Sporobolus junceus (Michx.) Kunth VINES Smilax bona-nox L. Passiflora lutea L. 16 Linum rig1dum Pursh. Cassia fasc1culata Michx. Conmelinia erecta L. Schizachyrium scopar1um (M1chx.) Nash Aristida longispica Poir. Eupatorim compositifolium Walt. Impacts and Threats The existence of 1· parksii is threatened by three primary factors: 1) human m:>dification of the hab i tat; 2) collection by orchid fanciers; and 3) artificial maintenance of the habitat. Human Modification of the Habitat Recent, massive growth at Texas A&M University, current and pending development of light" 1n~ustry, plus current and projected development of ·;.:.. J 17 oil and lignite deposits in Brazos County combine to place the Bryan/ College Station area as a national center for economic development.· Construction and population expansion, currently progressing at a rapid rate, can be expected to increase with improvement of the--national economic picture. Unfortunately, the geographic center for future development in the Brazos County area is along State Highway 6, south of College Station. As discussed earlier, the major population system of 1· parksi1 inhabits this area. The College Station Industrial Park, currently being established, lies just to the northeast of this site. Land adjacent to the site on the south, owned by the.Texas International Speedway, is currenty being sold as potential industrial sites. Apparently unrelated to local plans, but certainly enhancing the potential for development of the area, is the expansion of State Highway 6 to a limited access highway with associated •feeder• roads on either side. It is estimated that highway construction would eliminate approximately 2.5 percent of the known l· parksii individuals. The Spiranthes parksii population north of TIS is underlaid by a massive seam of lignite. This land was purchased by the current owners as a potential source .of fuel for a large power facility in nearby Grimes County. However, the escalation of land values resulting from development south of College Station has reduced the likelihood of lignite mining 1n this area, although mining w111 always remain a possib11 ity. 18 Brazos County has been a center for massive oil exploration and development during the past four years. While this activity has decreased recently, 1t is likely to i~crease with improving economic conditions. Drilling activities, at the site south of TIS, eliminated about 10 acres of habitat and an unknown but probably substantial number of S. parksii individuals in 1981. The leasing arrangements for the Grimes County population center have yet to be determined, but this l and is within sight of a relatively new lignite-burning power plant at Carlos, Texas. This plant, operated by the Texas Municipal Power Authority, was positioned to be in close proximity to the rich lignite deposits underlying western Grimes County and eastern Brazos County. This relationship does not place the relatively large population of 400+ S. parksii in Grimes County in a secure position. Both the Burleson and Robertson County populations are along fence rows and are subject to threats from cattle grazing and road maintenance. In summary, the most inmediate and serious threat to the continued existence of~· parks11 is human modification of the habitat. Planned urban development of land and lignite mining pose the most immediate threat to the species. Certainly, discovery of the Grimes County population provides some buffer, and the newly discovered patches of 'I ~ • -~ -. ' JC ... 19 individuals at various locations in Brazos, Burleson, Grimes, and Robertson Counties provide some assurance that the species will continue to exist if the major population centers at TIS and Carlos, Texas, are ... eliminated. However, elimination of these centers will leave only 20 percent of the known indivic1uals of th{s species. Collecting Luer's recent volume on North American orchids (1975) contains illustrations of all species except one, 1· parksii. Orchids attract the widest and most lntense interest from "fanciers." Clearly,~· parksii is among the rarest of North American orchids. This unique condition of rarity from both nation al and intern at ion al perspectiv.es pl aces the species as a target for collectors. It is unrea 11st1c to perceive this· as a mi nor threat fr an a few eccentric hobbyists. Collection of rare plants, especially orchids, can be a profitable enterprise for unscrupulous conmercial operators. While not as inmediate or potenti.ally massive a threat as human modification of the habitat, the problen of "loving to death• by fanciers will remain indefinitely for all known, yet unprotected populations. Artificial Maintenance of the Habitat As compared to collecting and human modification of habitat, this 20 potential threat is both uncertain and dista.nt. Plants of this species do not occupy areas of well developed forest, nor are they found in natural prairie sites or open, recently disturbed areas. Therefore, it is reason- able to conclude that l· parksii may be part of a subclimax cornnunity that exists only as a successional stage. Natural ecosystem disruptions, such as fire or grazing, may be necessary for maintenance of the cornnunity in which l· parksii can exist. Complete protection of the habitat by man could allow natural succession to proceed to a level that no longer pro- vides the factors required by~-parksii. The Post Oak Savanna is, by definition, oak woodland interspersed by natural openings. Thus, l· parksii could be adapted to the complex, natural interplay Miong ecologi- cal variables that produces scattered openings. Since we know essentially nothing about 1· parksii and its ecological amplitude, this uncertainty will remain until relevant data are developed. llle potential threat of natural habitat modification is relatively distant because we know that significant natural change, if it occurs, will not impact known i· parksii for at least several years. Thus, while this potential threat does not require inmediate attention, it will be an important factor with regard to recovery fran the long tenn perspective. . · . . -:.. ... ~ . u . ..... •.· ...- PART II RECOVERY Because the distribution of Spiranthes parksii lies within a geo- graphic matrix of surging economic development, the establishment and maintenance of vigorous, self-sustaining populations throughout the known range would be impractical. Therefore, the primary objective of this recovery plan is the establishment and maintenance of two safe sites. It is felt that this approach will focus effort and available funding into ........ activities that would ensure preservation of known population ecosystems . and also provide the foundation for possible restoration of the species beyond the safe sites in the future. Thus, the following plan places first priority on the establishment of two safe sites and the success of the recovery plan will hinge on this. The nature of the threats to l· parksii is such that it is unlikely they can be totally abated. Urban and industrial growth in the Bryan/ College Station area will continue, at least in the foreseeable future, and pressure for exploitation of energy resources is also expected to con- tinue to increase in the foreseeable future. Collection of this orchid, and ecological succession~l processes will also continue to threaten the species. This species is vulnerable due to its small numbers and limited range. Such vulnerability and continuing threat will necessitate constant protection of the species. Therefore, it is unlikely that delisting will be feasible for l· parksii in the foreseeable future. The goal of this recovery plan then, is to secure recovery for the species to the point at 22 which downlisting can occur. The criter1a ·for initiation of downlisting procedures is the establishment and securing of two safe sites containing portions of the existing ~.~parksii population, through cooperative agreements, purchases, easements or other means of obtaining management rights, and through preparation and implementation of management plans. Step-down Outline 1. Remove inmediate threats to~· parksii by protecting the major population systems from threats posed by human modification of the habitat and impact from collecting. 11. Establish two safe sites for S. parksii through protection of lands carrying the largest concentrations of individuals. 111. Protect land north of Texas International Speedway in Brazos County, Texas. 112. Protect land near Carlos in Grimes County, Texas. 12. Develop a managemen~ plan ·for each safe site. 13. Ensure that the safe sites, once established, are secure from possible impacts from the surrounding area. · 131. Maintain the integrity of drainage systems leading into and out of the safe sites. 132. Ensure that access into the sites can be controlled. 133. Establish an appropriate buffer between populations of S. parks11 within the safe sites and the surrounding area. , ·~ ~ ·'! l~ ,_ ·.<"-:- . · . . -:.,,; - ~1 .I .. 23 14. Develop a baseline set of ecological data from the safe sites. 141. Survey the vascular plant flora. 142. Identify faunal elements that could be interactive with S. parks ii. 143. Define parameters associated with safe site microclimate, soils, topography, and water resources. 2. Minimize long term threats to i· parksii through development of a base of information that is relevant to recovery. 21. Conduct analysis of those characteristics that would allow · identification of i· .parksii in the vegetative condition, and would clarify its taxonomy. 211. Examine variation in leaf structure. 212. Compare electr.ophoretic (macromolecular) variation in samples extract~ from leaf tissue. 213. Compare variation in micromolecular (flavonoids, phenolics, and related compounds) constituents of leaf extracts. 214. Conduct root tip chromosome counts. 22. Examine phenomena associated with potential for S. parksii propagation and relocation of plants. 221. Test transplantation methods. 222. Test procedures associated with seed germination and growth of seedlings. 223. Determine the extent and nature of fungal association with gro~h and devel-0pment of i· parks11. 24 224. Examine the ·possibility of large-scale propagation from seed. 23. Initiate a long term (5-year) monitoring program for two known populations, preferably at the safe sites. 231. Determine m1croc11matic parameters. 232. Survey flora specifically associated with populations of 1· parksii. 233. Mark all flowering individuals . . 234. Determine parameters associated with reproductive biology. 235. Determine natural threats and assess potential impact. 24. Establish and maintain a long term (5-year) survey program to elucidate actual distribution of 1· parksii. 241. Monitor known populations other than safe sites. 242. Search for new populations. 243. Take data from populations beyond the safe sites to determine comparative value of the general data base. 3. Develop public awareness, appreciation, and support for protection and recovery of 1· parksii. 31. Establish mechanisms to distribute information and materials associated with recovery efforts. 32. Establish a local technical interest group to initiate and implement recovery projects. 33. Establish a local public interest group to support and become involved with recovery projects. - - 25 Narrative 1. Remove illlllediate threats to S. parksii by protecting the major ~ population systems from threats posed by human modification of the habitat and impact from collecting. This species is in inmediate danger of extinction. Protection of as many individuals as possible must stand as the highest priority. 11. Establish two safe sites for S. parksii through protection of lands carrying the largest concentrations of individuals. All land inhabited by~· parksii populations is under private ownership. The Endangered Species Act is most effective in pro- tecting populations oh Federal lands. Protection of the species will require Federal involvement if the full protection of the ESA· is to be obtained. Therefore; actions such as easements, cooperative agreements, or purchases by FWS, The Nature Conser- vancy, or other conservation organizations should be considered for the establishment of safe sites. Such action by the FWS would require prior preparation of a Land Protection Plan. 111. Protect land north of Texas International Speedway in Brazos County, Texas. First priority with regard to selection of a safe site is clearly land inmed1ately north of the Texas International 26 Speedway. An area about l.m_ile square with State Highway 6 as the western boundary and Texas International Speedway as the souther~ boundary would provide maximum protection for .. the largest number of individuals. Land north of Alum Creek supports scattered individuals in relatively isolated, widely separated populations. 112. Protect land near Carlos in Grimes County, Texas. Land just west of Carlos, Texas, represents the secondary center of plant density, 400 individuals within a 5-acre area. This population is in an area underlain with lignite deposits and is in close proximity to a lignite-burning power plant, operated by Texas Municipal Power Authority. 12. Devel.op a management plan for each safe site. As protection is obtained for each safe site, a management plan should be prepared for the site. These plans should establish goal~ and objectives for management of the Spiranthes parksii and their habitat on the site. 13. Ensure that the safe sites, once established, are secure from possible impacts from the surrounding area. Protection of land, such as the site north of TIS and the site west of Carlos, Texas, establishes safe sites . The next step is .-1 . I .... . -·: . ... ,. ... .. .. J 27 to ensure that this investment will provide the desired return with regard to recovery, i.e~, take those actions necessary to maximize protection of the populations . ... 131. Maintain the integrity of drainage systems--leading into and out of the safe sites. Spiranthes parksii shows a definite tendency to occupy ground inrnediately. adjacent to lines of drainage, i.e., strean banks and openings adjacent to streams. It is therefore important to ensure that drainage patterns, rates of flow, and water quality are not altered by land modifi- cations in areas adjacent to the safe sites. 132. Ensure that access into the sites can be controlled. There can be little doubt that activities assoc~ated .ttith. establishment. of safe sites may draw attention to the areas, and the safe sites may become targets for collec- tors. This, plus the need for security against other. types of entry _into the areas, will require fencing the perimeter of the -safe site:s. 133. Establish an appropriate buffer between populations of S. parksii within the safe sites and the surrounding area. Concentration of individuals within the site north of TIS appears to be highest along the unnamed tributary running . , 28 north from Texas Internatioiia-1 Speedway. The populations cover about 200 acres. A buffer zone beyond this center of distributiortfor the species would extend to Stat~_ Highway 6 on the west, the pipeline right-of-way on the· east, Texas International Speedway on the south, and about 5 km north of Alum Creek on the north. This area, about 260 hectares (640 acres), would provide for inclusion of a larger number of~· parksii individuals on the safe site and provide the required buffer for the central population. A buffer would also be necessary for the Grimes County site. Specifica- tions of the size and boundaries of that site and buffer must yet be determined. 14. Develop a baseline set of ecological data from the safe sites. I • Future recovery operations concerning this species will require a better understanding of ecological parameters. The status of populations and their surroundings through time will have to be monitored. This activity will require an initial foundation of data. One advantage of the safe sites concept, beyond the elimination of inmediate threats, is the establishment of two stable areas for the observation of individuals. 141. Survey the vascular plant flora. A better understanding of the relationship between S. parksii and successional patterns in its habitat is " • !~ ~ .. ·.• .• .;,.. • : . .._ ,, ;. ;,; ~ :i -E ~ ~ -· ... ..... 29 essential. In addition, we need to obtain a clearer understanding of the relationship of species inrnediately associated with~· parksii. Thus, a primary objective of study within the safe sites will be identi-f-ication and frequency determination of the associated vascular flora. Assessment of changes in floristic composition of the two primary~· parksii population areas will provide a better understanding of this species as it relates to local successional change. 142. Identify faunal elements that could be interactive with S. parksi i. · · Animals could play an important role in the life of 1· parksii, either as an element of change in the local ecology or a vector for dispersal. 143. Define parameters associated with safe site microclimate, soils, topography, and water resources. A centra.l quest ion with regard to recovery efforts concerns the current d·istribution of S. parksii. Are the major population systems occurring at particular sites because of a unique factor associated with the areas, or is the present distribution a result of historical factors? Clarification of this question will require a better definition of ecological parameters associated with the 30 population sites. A weather --station should be established at the sites, a thorough soils survey should be conducted in the area!, a clear picture of both macro-and microtopographic contexts of the areas should be established, and the nature and quality of the water supply should be determined. 2. Minimize long term threats to S. parksii through development of a base of information that is relevant to recovery. While establishment of two safe sites will protect the major popula- tion systems of~· parksii, aspects of actual recovery should be pursued. This involves analysis of those factors relating to the use of the safe sites as refuges for salvaged plants and a detailed analy- sis of basic biological factors. 21. Conduct analysis of those characteristics that would allow identification of S. parksii in the vegetative condition and would clarify its taxonomy. A major problem with regard to data acquisition for this plant is the difficulty differentiating~· parksii from other species of the genus when the plants are not in flower. During the active photosynthetic period, spring and early sumner, Spiranthes is evident in the local flora only as a basal cluster of elongate, fleshy leaves. It appears that only a subset of the photosynthetic population will produce inflorescences in the .""!' ·, :_, ··.'"' ~ 31 fall. Thus, researchers have access to a large number of plants in the spring, but without ihe ability to recognize!· parksii, their ability to gather data is limited. In addition, these ... analyses will help to clarify the taxonomy of!· _parksii and its relationship to other members of the genus. 211. Examine variation in leaf structure. Leaf structure is generally a rather conservative feature and there may be no distinct characteristics ~eparating the different species of Spiranthes. However, this would be the most efficient method for field identification of the non-flowering stage of~· parksii if such features were present, and the possibility should be examined. 212. Compare electrophoretic (macromolecular) variation in samples extracted from leaf tissue. Prior electrophoretic work (Walters and Wilson, 1982) has demonstrated variation in isozyme patterns among local Spiranthes taxa. However, this work was coriduct~d from floral extracts. Because isozyme variation is under _relatively simple genetic control, we can expect a higher probability of locating a specific "marker• for!· parksii with this method. Thus, work with leaf tissue extracts should be pursued. 32 213. Compare variation in mi cromolecul ar (fl avonoids, pheno 1 ics, and related compounds) constituents of leaf extracts. Chromatographic separation of methanolic leaf ex~~acts often yields distinctive patterns among vascular plant taxa. This approach could therefore provide the desired •marker• for l· parksii. 214. Conduct root tip chromosome counts. Chromosome counts wi)l help determine the taxonomic posi- of l· parksii, particularly the questions of its relation- ship to the l· cernua complex. Sheviak (1982) considers all tetraploids to be l· cernua. 22. Examine phenomena associated with potential for S. parksii propagation and relocation of plants. Given the level of development in the east-central Texas area, it is reasonable to assume that salvage efforts will come into play. We therefore need to know more about the dynamics of l· parks11 man 1 pu l at 1 on and pro_pag at ion • 221. Test transplantation methods. An initital transplantation effort of a few 1nd1v1duals in the fall of 1982 demonstrated that l· parksii can be moved into a new area and survive through the photosynthetic, spring phase of the life cycle. These plants failed to flower in the fall of 1983, but developed leaves in the spring of 1984. Additional experiments of this nature, as required by forced removal due to 1mmediate threats, will I ·I ·- ··-·- ~l J .. .. - 222. 33 both enhance our ability to work with the plant and allow . . rough determination of · ecological amplitude. Test procedures associated with seed germination and ... growth of seedlings. Seeds have been germinated and young plants have been grown in a sterile, tissue-culture medium. Addition al work in this area, with a focus on determination of factors required for the establishment of lab-grown seedlings in the natural habitat, will provide enhanced flexibility for future recovery efforts. 223. Determine the extent and nature of fungal association with growth and development of S. park·sii. This factor, possibly of great importance in the 11fe- cycle of!· parks11, is essentially unknown at this time. Further elucidation will require analysis of root . anatomy for mycorhizzal association and, possibly, incorP.orat1on of potential fungal symbionts in adjusted artificial growth media to test interaction with seeds of!· parksii~ 224. Examine the possibility of large-scale propagation from seed. This is an attractive option for dealing with pressure on natural populations that could come from orchid fanciers. 34 Availability of artificially propagated material representing this species would lessen the impact of this threat. In ~ddition, dissemination of this type of material would serve, at least to some extent, to extend the distribution of 2_. parksii into a new, but artificial, habitat. Finally, development of these procedures would provide the foundation for possible recovery of the species through introduction of propagated individuals into new areas. 23. Initiate a long tenn (5-year) monitoring program for two known populations, preferably at the· safe sites. This is essentially a program that would build frcm the data base established in item #13. A 5-year accumulation of data would provide needed definitions for factors associated with reproduction biology and ecology which are essentially unknown at this time. 231. Determine microclimatic parameters. llie climate of the i· parksii range is characterized by fairly wide annual fluctuations. llius, specific data drawn frcm the study sites should be taken on a multi-year basis. In addition, data taken for other aspects listed in this section will have greater application· and relevance if they are supported by microclimatic data. .:~ ·~ -~ .. '· .-... .... 35 232. Survey flora specifically associated with populations of S. parks ii. Fluctuation with regard to local species composition ... through time will provide valuable data concerning the successional position of~· parksii. An annual floristic survey will monitor this fluctuation. 233. Mark all flowering individuals. This is the only method whereby important life history questions can be approached. What percentage of plants in a given population flower each year? Is the population growing? Do plants reproduce vegetatively by root-shoots? How long does it take a plant to reach reproductive age? What is the life span of an individual plant? 234. Determine parameters associated with reproductive biology. This will involve determination of pollen vectors, crnount of self-pollination, hybridization potential with other, sympatric species of the genus, and general assessment of reproductive potential and genetic structure of population systems. 235. Determine natural threats and assess potential impact. This will essentially be a •spin-off• aspect from activities associated with those items listed above in this section. Actual damage to plants or potentially negative interactions wi 11 be noted and tracked in study populations. 36 24. Establish and maintain a long term· (5-year) survey program to elucidate actual distribution of S. parksii. Recovery efforts tannot be limited to work with the tw~--largest populations. While this plan focuses on the areas of greatest density of individuals, effort in other areas must be maintained. 241. Monitor known populations other than the safe sites. Periodic visits, at least once a year during flowering, should be made to those sites known to carry populations or individuals representing i· parksii. 242. Search for new populations. This activity, l imited to a few weeks each October/ November, should be maintained for at least 5 years. Identification of~-parksii requires thorough site survey by individuals that are familiar with the plant. Given the limited amount of time available each year, we can only search a finite amount of potential habitat. Thus, a final determination. of distribution and frequency for this species will require a sustained effort. 243. Take data from populations beyond the safe sites to determine comparative value of the general data base. A critical subset of ecological data included in the safe sites study will be taken fran outlier populations of S. • <! ,_. ... • "e ... ~ .. .. - 37 parksii. This will allow an assessment of our ability to generalize from the sa.fe sites' data and also provide a picture of overall ecological amplitude for this species • .... 3. Develop public awareness, appreciation, and support for protection and recovery of S. parksii. Work on this plant, to date, would not have been possible without dedicated support from members of the conwnunity. All survey ._teams, approximately 20 people, were manned by volunteers. Other aspects of' the recovery/protection effort will require public awareness and support. 31. Establish mechanisms to distribute information and materials associated with recovery efforts. This will involve basic public relations activities, both at the local and national levels. 32. Establish a local technical interest group to initiate and implement recovery projects. Such a group, mainly composed of life science faculty and staff at Texas A&M University, has been informally assembled. Several individuals were involved in survey efforts during the fall of 1982 and 1983. Others have indicated a willingness to assist with aspects of the recovery effort that involve their speciality. Success of the recovery effort w111 require the establishment of such a group. 38 33. Establish a local public int'erest ·group to support and become involved with recovery projects. As indicated abo~, a team of interested citizens can __ _ significantly expedite the implementation of this plan. In addition, public support in a less direct manner will facilitate many aspects of the work. Every effort should be made to enlist local appreciation and -support for recovery activities. • •I .· ~ l!I •. -·.• .... -· -- - -~1 l ... ·39 LITERATURE CITED Catling, P. M. and K. L. Mcintosh. 1979. Rediscovery of Spiranthes ~ parksii Correll. Sida 8(2): · 188-193. Correll, D. S. 1947. Am. Orch. Soc. Bull. 16: 400. Correll, D. s .. 1950. Native orchids of North America (North of Mexico). Chronica Botanica Co. 399 pp. Correll, D. S. and M. C. Johnston. 1979. Manual of the vascular plants of Texas. lhe University of Texas at Dallas (2nd printing). 1881 pp. Luer, C. A. 1975. lhe native orchids of the United States and Canada excluding Florida. New York Botanical Garden. 361 pp. Mahler, W. F. 1980. Status report for Spiranthes parksii Correll. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (mimeo). Schlechter, R. 1920. Versucheiner Systematischen Neuordnung der Spiranthinae. Beih. Bot. Centralbl. 37: 317-454. 40 Sheviak, C. J. 1982. Biosystemat ic study o~ the Spiranthes cernua complex. New York State Museum Bull. 448. 73 pp. Swamy, G. L. 1948. Agamospermy in Spiranthes cernua. Lloydia 11: 149-162. Walters, T. and H. 0. Wilson. 1982. Electrophoretic variation and taxonomic relationships of Sp1ranthes parksii. Botanical Society of America. Misc. publ. 162: 111. {abstract) Wilson, H. 0. and G. Ajilvsg1. 1983. Status report for Navasota ladies'- tresses (Sp1ranthes parksii Correll). Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service {mimeo). • ~ ' _c 41 PART II I IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE Priorities in column four of the imp-lementation schedule are assigned using the following guidelines: Priority one (1) -Those actions absolutely necessary to prevent extinction of the species. Priority two (2) -Those actions necessary to maintain the species' current population status. ' Priority three (3) -All other actions necessary to provide for full recovery of the species. Abbreviations used: FWS -USO! fish and Wildlife Service SE -Office of Endangered Species RE -Realty TNC -The Nature Conservancy GENERAL CATEGORIES FOR IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULES Information Gathering - I or R (Research) Acquisition - A 1. Population status 1. Lease 2. Habitat status 2. Easement 3. Habitat requirements 3. Management agreement 4. Management techniques 4. Exch~nge 5. Taxonomic studies 5. Withdrawal 6. Demographic studies 6. Fee title 7. Propagation 7. Other 8. Migration 9. Predation Other -O 10. Competition 11. Disease 1. Information & .educatfon 12. Environmental contaminant 2. Law enforcement 13. Reintroduction 3. Regulations 14. Other Information 4. Administration Management - M 1. Propagation 2. Reintroduction 3. Habitat maintenance and manipulation 4. Predator and competitor control 5. Depredation control 6. Disease control 7. Other management PART III -IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE IENERAL PLAN TASK TASK I PRIORITY I TASK RESPONSIBLE AGENCY FISCAL YEAR COSTS COMMENTS :ATEGORY DURATION (EST.)* FWS OTHER FY 1 FY 2 FY 3 REGION PROGRAM (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (6) (7) (8) (9) ,6 -Protect land north of 111 1 ongoing 2 SE TNC Texas International RE Speedway in Brazos Co., , TX. l6 Protect land near Carlos 112 1 ongoing 2 SE TNC in Grimes, Co., TX. RE z:- ~3 Develop a management 12 2 1 2 SE 3,000 N plan for each safe site. ~3 Ensure that the safe 13 1 ongoing 2 SE 10,000 5,000 5,000 sites are secure from possible· impacts from surrounding area. [3 . Develop a baseline suite 14 2 2 2 SE 5,000 5,000 of ecological data from the safe sites. ll Conduct analysis of 21 3 2 2 SE 10,000 10,000 those characteristics ! that could allow ident1- f1cat1on of 1· parks11 in the vegetative condition. *Costs refer to USFWS expenditures only. ,. .. fl · l•.· . ;\ ...... . ,, '· l ~ ... '·: ..... . ... ·"" t '·'~ ..... -.J d·.· ~ ... . . PART III -IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE GENERAL PLAN TASK TASK I PRIORITY I TASK RESPONSIBLE AGENCY FISCAL YEAR COSTS COMMENTS CATEGORY DURATION (EST.)* FWS OTHER FY 1 FY 2 FY 3 REGION PROGRAM (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (6) (7) (8) .. (9) , R7 Examine phenomena asso-· 22 3 3 2 SE 5,000 5,000 5,000 ciated with potential for S. aarksH propaga- tion-an relocation of plants. Il Initiate a long term 23 2 5 2 SE 10,000 10,000 19,000 12 monitoring program for 13 two safe sites. /::-w 11 Establish and maintain 24 3 5 2 SE 5,000 5,000 5,000 R3 a long term survey pro- gram to elucidate actual distribution of S • ~arks11. ..... 01 Establish mechanisms to 31 3 ongoing 2 SE 3,000 3,000 3,000 distribute information i and materials associated with recovery efforts. M7 Establish a local tech-32 3 ongoing 2 SE 5,000 5,000 5,000 ni.cal interest. group to initiate and implement recovery projects. *Costs refer to USFWS expenditures only. PART III -IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE GENERAL PLAN TASK TASK # PRIORITY # TASK RESPONSIBLE AGENCY CATEGOR.Y DURATION FWS OTHER REGION PROGRAM (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (6) (7) M7 Establish a local public 33 3 ongoing 2 SE interest group to sup- port and become involved with recovery projects. .. *Costs refer to USFWS expenditures only. '. . ....... '. ,. .. , •• . -~ t· -\ ".~ _.., ... ..... ..... "-":".'·" ... ,... . ... ,,,,,;.· ~· .; . . 'J ,:-. "" ti;.'"··"' 'A-.. ••.• ~. . (, FISCAL YEAR COSTS FY83 (8) 3,000 I..:.:!~ r;~ .. :: :'I (EST.) .FY84 FY85 3,000 3,000 , I COMMENTS (9) 45 APPENDIX LIST OF REVIEWERS A Technical Review dNift was sent out for review on October 18, 1983, and was conmented upon by the following people: Carol M. Natella, Environmental Protection Agency, Ecological Effects Branch Harold E. Beaty, Texas Plant Recovery Team leader, Temple, Texas Regional Director, Nat 1onal Park Service, Southwest Region, Santa Fe," New Mexico Or. Elray s. Nixon, S. F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, Texas Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. An Agency Review draft was sent out for review on March 26, 1984, and was conmented on by the following people: Harold E. Beaty, Texas Plant Recovery Team leader, Temple, Texas · Robert E. Cook, Cornell Plantations, Ithaca, New York Railroad Conmission of Texas, Austin, Texas U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas Texas Natural Heritage Program, Austin, Texas Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, Texas Texas Department of W_ater Resources, Aust in, Texas Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, O.C. U.S. Fish ·and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Field Offke, Fort Worth, Texas U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Revion IV, Dallas, Texas ~-1 46 IM flCPl. Y "lrCA 10: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INT£RI~ f'ISH AND WILDLil"E 6ERV1a POI l 01T I CC lrJrX 1 >ell& SE .. a ...... 111~" Al • QJOQJi • Mal KJl I CO 01 UD MAR 26 1984 C -!rlt-y H :.lv-;:~ JiQif;,~ - Mr. Charles D. Travi~ Executive Director Texas Parks and Wildlife Departme~t 4200 Smith School Road Austin, Texas 78744 Attn: Nongame Program Director Dear Mr. Travis: Enclosed for your review and comments is a copy of the agency review draft recovery plan for Spiranthes parksii. Kale·. 1~Vi This review involves agenc.ies and individuals that may be affected by the recovery plan. This plan is a draft and has not yet been approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It was prepared by Service per- sonnel from the technical review draft and from comments by reviewers of that draft. The plan is subject to modification following review and re.ceipt of comments by cooperating agencies and other informed and interested parties. We would appreciate receiving your conunents by May 15, 1984. If you have any questions, please contact Peggy Olwell of the tndang~red Species Office at (505) 766-3972. Thank you for your interest and assistance. o::;;;1 FWS REG2 RECEIVED 2'84 APR A· \i~hrJ Regional Director §i ----- - --------.., . 30 March·· 1984 Theiattached draft recovery plan for Spiranthes parksii has been reviewed. I have made a few suggested editorial changes and additions. It is my feelings that a map (Fig. 5) of the site in Grimes County would be useful. Personally, I find this draft recovery pian is realistic and wel~-pa -my personal congratulations to the authors. . ~ ~' =y- ro E. Be T>C ..,,. 4 /1 .C'.-.. --~ M •• -I~ \-e.-d-.r\ • ' ... - - ..-. ~l tLJ .......... - ... :;...: - . ' ;,:·.;:·'. ··:.~.The',;\RBORE~lJM~·BoTANJCAL~ARDEN;·and:NATVRAC:AREAS.~f ·COR~tLt/UNIVERSITY ,·;::.::· .. A-2 A-3 A-4 A-5 May 6, 1984 Mr. Daniel James Acting Recovery c;..oordinator Office of Endangered Species U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Washington, O.C. 20240 Dear Mr. James, ONE PLANTATIONS ROAD ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 · 607-256-3020 · I hope you wi 11 forgive me for taHng so long to write some corrments on the Spirant~es parksii recovery plan; spring brings too many things to do in a botani"c garden .. The recovery plan for Spi'ranthes is generally very good, and l have only a few conments to add. Ftrst, fo executing the plan, it will be tmportant to be economi"cal. I' don"t see how a large system for collecting baseline data is .going to be helpful, ei"ther on associated flora or microclimate. Exactly how will it tell us· anything that will be helpful? Focus on the populati'on bi"ology for now. I do think it will be important to detenntne the "succes·s iona 1 status•• of the vegetatfon (pg 11), but not to be too bound by a ri'gid concept .of "success·fon". Pocus· on the s·cale and frequency of disturbances such as· fi're, flood, herbtvory, etc. Second, detennining accurate population number~ is essential. Orchi.ds don't always come up every year, and a dormant year may loolC li'ke an indi:vi.dual is dead. Tracktng marked plants over s·everal years· fs c-rtti'cal.. The plan fails to give s.ufftchmt details on methods of 111arldng and counttng (pg 12, 36).. Thi.s should be stated clearly for comparbon and crtttque. Thi.rd, orch.td seedl i11gs often fonn mycorhi:zal associ.~ti'ons and ma.y-remain below ground for many· yea·rs after. gent!inatton, Thi.'S; area ef its btol.ogy needs much. work. Since s·eeds· ·can be genntnated, seedl l"ngs need to be i'nocula~ed wi.th nati.ve sotl frQm the stte of the parent. They mtgtit then f>e s-own back i:nto the site, b.ut won"t appea.r as s-eedltngs· for several years. Thts, along with fote11T1i:ttent dormancy of adults below-ground, ~Y account for the appea.ranc.e of "radtca.1 pQpula.tton .fluctuattons": lpg l4l. whi'ch really have nothing to do wi_th a.ctua.1 cha.nges tn popula.tton numbers. · . fourth, the posstbili.'t,y of asexual -reproducti·on by seeds nee~s yeri:fi ... cat,on a.nd deyelopnent. It could ta.ke care of .collectors and prov1:de a. sour<e of many seedl i_11gs for sowtng afte~ genni'nation, ftn~lly, di:scovertng new populati:ons ts al~a.ys a good tdea.. EXtenstve A-6 w9rk. to ex~i.ne s-econda.ry compounds (pg 33] seems imprac"ttca 1 ~ find sQRJe vegetati:)te characters to tdentify plants wi"th, · · · I. hope this has been helpful, I s·ometimes get down to W~sh\'ngton for . erhaps P ·11 stop by and say he.llo, My best wtshes. to ,you for s.pn~9· -M:_ • 105 W. RIVERSIDE DRIVE CAPITOL STATION -P. 0 . DRAWER 12967 -7 ... April 19, 1984 Conrad Sjetland Assistant Regional Director Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species Off ice · P. o. Box. 1306 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 Dear Mr. Sjetland: RE: Review and Comments on Fish and Wildlife Service Agency Review Draft Recovery Plan for Spiranthes parksii We have reviewed the copy of the agency review draft recovery plan for. Spiranthes parksii you sent .us. As you know, the colonies of Spiranthes parksii of primary concern to the Railroad Commission are those in Grimes County that are near or within the permit area for the TMPA Gibbons Creek Lignite Mine. A review of our files has shown that there is presently no disturbance planned in the area on the northern boundary of the TMPA permit where a major colony of at least 400 Spiranthes parksii plants was found. · We agree with the plan's recommendations providing for the safety of the Spiranthes parksii. Although we have no problems with the proposed plan, we request the opportunity to review the final draft before the plan is implemented. If I can be of further assistance please give me a call at 512/475-8751. JRH/sg xc: Bob Markey J. Randel (Jerry) Hill · Director REC'D FWS-Region 2 APR 2 5 1984 .. , ii . f ~ ?.2' .. ~· "L ~ : - ' - . .• ....... ·: ~ - A-8 '*~ u.e . DE:f'ARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Mr. Michael J. Spear Regional Director f"COCRAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION IH f'COCRAL Of'FICC BUILDING AUSTIN, TCXAS 71701 u. s. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service P. 0. Box 1306 Albuquerqu_e, NM 87103 Attention: Pe~gy Olwell Dear Sir: April 12, 198"4 We have reviewed the draft recovery plan for Spiranthes parksii in the Bryan, Texas area and have the following col1lllent. During the Section 7 consultation for the proposed SH 6 projec~, the Texas State Department of Highways and Public Transportation agreed to pennit use of an approximate seven acre site in the Peach Creek Road interchange area for protection of the Navasota ladies'-tresses. The use of this area will have to be by some fonn of agreement or pennit with that agency. Sincerely your_s, - -RD- -.DRD- ~~~ --AWR- --AHR- _LE.--- _PAO- _EtO-....l...me-6£ --Adion--"- _cL -'"d1 · ·-· ··'' . APR 1 6 1984 -DRD--:J 50 -i~=r= UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ~;:e~~~.::;-,.L.:-AWR_ ·1 REGIONVI . AHR- INTERFIRST TWO BUILDING. 1201 ELM STREET -LE-- DALLAS. TEXAS 7~270 _PAO-• -EEO · . :I --=i:::~ -2..fllE S~ May 16, 1984 l=:::f:--L~:?!:.-='==..:_-=._JL---1 '-Cl-I ... Mr. Conrad Fjetland Assistant Regional Director U.S. Department of Interior Fi sh and Wi 1.dli fe Service P.O. Box 1306 . Albuquerque, New HexicQ 87103 Dear Hr. Fjetland: We have reviewed the draft Recovery Plan for the Navasota ladies' Tresses, Spiranthes parksii :Correll. We believe the plan effort to be comprehensive and technically sound. We have the foll ow1 ng sped fie comments: A-9 A-10 1. A public awareness program should be carefully considered before initiation to avoid any Mbackfiring• resulting in increased collecting by the public. 2. On page 13, the statement on density is difficult to follow. It may possibly be clarified using number of ind1v1duals per single unit. We are very interested in the Recovery Plan as additional lignite mines are proposed to occur in the general area, for which affects would be considered~ We would appreciate being informed of any proposed n¥>difi- cat1ons to this plan and status of its adoption. Please call me, Norm Thomas or Jeanene Peckham .(FTS-729-9883) at Region 6 on these matters. Sincerely yours, l!f~;;::~ 4 oZk- Chief, Federal Activities Branch (6ES-F) l=\lfs R~G 2 RtC£/V£D HAY 21 '84 §§ REC'D •. fWS-Region 2 .: MAY l .3 1984 AFF 4 ·1 ~ ·I .. - ': ·; ~ . ...... . ·: 51 TEXAS NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRA .-...... -··· . I =~·l~--· ~-j c .... ·y Guy Macro Commissiont•r Ct•m•r.al 1 .md Oflin· ... Ms. Jackie M. Poole Botanist April 10, 1984 Mr. Conrad Sjetland Assistant Regional Director U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Post Off ice Box 1306 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 Dear Mr. Sjetland: -RD- _ORD- -AA_,.- -h..AFF-¥-. _AWR- _AHR- .. _lE---::-:- _PAO- -EEO-~fllE 5E _Cl- I hs.ve reviewed the agency review draft recovery plan for Spiranthes parksii, and feel-the following comments should be addressed. A-11 A~12 A-13 (1) On p. 2, the first sentence in the taxonomy section states that "Spiranthes parksii i~ unusual • • • in that the taxon has not been altered with regard to rank or circumscription." This hardly seems unusual or unique for a tmc:on described only 37 years ago, and one with no additional material except the type specimen collected for 31 years. Also Luer (1975)* included, albeit questionably, !• parksii in!· lacera var. gracilis, (2) (3) which would broaden the circumscription. On p. 3, still in the taxonomy section, S. parksii is said to be "clearly defined as a taxonomic species." While !· parksii may be defined morphologically by its floral characteristics, its status as a species does not seem as clear. In addition to-the Luer reference mentioned above, he also states that "very possi- bly !· parksii repres.ents an aberrant or polyploid form of var. gracilis, or. a non-persisting hybrid of var. gracilis and .!· cernua.11 Sheviak (pers. comm.) thinks that.!• parksii is part of the S. cernua complex. In his biosystematic study of the complex-; Sheviak (1982) stated that "all tetraploids must be . treated as S. cernua." Root tip chromosome counts should be of high priority to rule out the possibility of .!· parksii being merely a form of !· cernua. .. On .p. 11 in the habitat section, if the phrase "most specie-s of the genus" directly refers to Sheviak's 1982 work, Sheviak ~s speaking of the !· cernua complex, ·not the entire genus. • All references are the same as in the agency review draft. Slrpl1~.,, I-". Au!Ctin IJ"ilcli11s t.'»1 ~ J.f;"!i.f#>fJ(I - 1 ;-011 N1•rll1 C1NI,_.,,.,. .. ; REE :EIVE APR 16 'f REC'D FWS-R~ion ~ APR 1319~ Mr. Sjetland April 10, 1984 Page 2 52 (4) A-14 (5) A-15 Also on p. 11 in the same section, a "high incidence of endemism" is said to occur in east-central Texas. Although I do not know what "high" is in comparison with, other areas of Texas, such as the Trans-Pecos an~ the Edwards Plateau have many more endemics. East-central Texas is not noted for a high incidence of endemics (Diamonrl, pers. comm.; Riskind, pers. coDDD.; Johnston, pers. comm.). On pp. 32 and 33, several methods are proposed to identify S. parksii in the vegetative state. Two of these methods, th~ flavonoid and electrophoretic work, may not be of much value. Sheviak (1982) states that in the cernua complex "flavonoids have been found to be in such low concentrations that samples cannot be obtained from single individuals as is necessary in the com- plex populations under study." Thus, leaf extracts may not yield any valuable information. The same may also be true of electro- phoretic work. Although isozyme variation is under relatively simple genetic control, the S. cernua complex is a compilospecies (Sheviak 1982), meaning the genes of many related species are in- corporated in the complex. Thus, isozyme relationships may vary among individuals of a species as well as among species, and electrophorectic evidence may be inconclusive. Probably the most important work which needs to be done is root tip chromosome counts. Sheviak (1982) gives excellent instructions for prepara- tion and fixation of the root tips. He has done many counts on other species in the S. cernua complex. As I quoted from his work earlier, he considered all tetraploids part of S. cernua. Thus, obtaining a chromosome count is most desirable:- Although ·spiranthes parksii is already listed as endangered, I feel the most im- portant questions are whether !· parksii is part of the cernua complex, and if so, is it just a part of cernua itself. Sheviak (pers. comm.) thought that!· parksii was part of the cernua complex because the seeds of !· parksii are like those of the cernua complex which are unique. Also he felt the wider lateral petals might be a "semi-peloric" condit"ion; that is, tending toward three lip- like structures, rather than the· lip narrowing to produce linear-lanceolate lateral petals as in most peloric flowers. He agreed that chromosome counts are essential to determine the status of !· parksii, either as a species or merely part of the highly variable !• cernua. At this time, I feel that habitats for S. parksii should be preserved either -1 E)through easements or conservation agreements. Habitat should not be purchased until !· parksii is clearly verified as a distinct species. Sincerely, ~/ti,~ Jackie M. Poole Botanist, Texas Natural Heritage Program :J ' . • i ·[ •. ~· - COIH!ISSIOllliRS EDWIN l COX. JR. Oilirman. Athens GEORG£ R. SOUN VK1·0l•irm1n. Houston W~4. 0. BRA£CKUIN Dales WM. l GRAHAM Alnarillo RICHARD R. MORRISON. II 011r lab City W. B. OSBORN. JR. San~ ll•lll l'EIWNS 0. SAMS Midllnd DR. MY £. SANTOS l!Alboci WM. M. WHlllSS. II Hc!ultoa A-17 53 • . . , TEXAS PARKS AND WILD LIFE 4200 s..i'1i Sc ..... "--' ....... 11111 11144 May 24, 1984 .... Mr. Michael J. Spear · Director, Region 2 u. s. Fish and Wildlife P. o. Box .1306 Albuquerque, New Mexico Dear Mike: Service 87103 This ·is in response to your letter of March 26, 1984 regarding the agency review draft recovery plan for Spiranthes parksii. The plan appears to be adequate, but rearrangement of priorities could place the species in better perspec- tive. Detennination of its systematics would seem central to solving the problems ·of understanding habi- tat requirements, distribution, presumed population decline, fungal association, and management. In other words, what is it--a distinct species or a variant of one of the Spiranthes cernua complex of species? The answer could easily modify not only major parts of the plan, but possibly negate need for listing. In view of the systematic problems associated with the species, perhaps C. J. Sheviak should have been included as a technical reviewer. We appreciate the opportunity to review the draft plan. Let us know if we ·may be of further assistance. Sincerel~ . • ·~~D.l~ Executive Director CDT:FEP:aeh .,,,. 2. 9 ADOUSS CMILY Tiil OIRCCTOI. f1Sll 11'0 WIUIUrt SCllVICl _RD- LDRD- 54 ~A-a;;_ United States Department of the Interior -~~~ _AHR- FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE _lE-- WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240 _PAO- _E£0-c=-2. ~fllE~ _a/ID"':> In Reply Refer To: FWS/OES ... Memorandum To: Regional Director, Region 2 (ARD/AFF) Actip.g Associate MAY 1 5 1984. _ RECEIVED 1$f &.W-REG. 2 MAY 211984 OfflCE Of THE IEOIOHAI. DIRfCTOll I , From: Director i~-. .· """""~-·-"·"'~··. ·--r. Subject: Conrnents on Navasota Ladies 1 -Tresses Recovery Plan-Agency Draft We have reviewed the subject plan and provided conments in the margin of the attached plan. We would like to highlight the following conments: A-18 1. There are numerous references to Dr. Wilson's 1982 and 1983 surveys (which Geyata Ajilvsgi apparently assisted in) but the work is never cited. This should at least be cited as unpublished data. /\-1~2. If collecting is as severe a problem as indicated, Figure 4 should be modified or deleted as it depicts rather specific site locations. Also, the plan should provide a method of dealing with .illegal take. . If collecting is not a significant problem, then the other populations, especially the one west of Carlos, should be depicted on a map similar to the one used in Figure 4 • A-20 3. As noted in our conrnents on the technical draft, a portion of Part I is in a narrative format, and a portion is in an expanded outline format. Please revise the format to be consistent throughout Part I. A-214. Much of the discussion in Part I, particularly in the Impacts and Threats section, deals with the Texas International Speedway site. If it is available, we should provide more information on the other sites. t\-22 5. A-236. The Impacts and Threats section would benefit from a reorganization of paragraphs and sente~ces, as noted on page 20. Wi 11 achieving the Primary Objective (establishment ancr. maintenance . of two safe sites) allow us to downlist or de11st the species? Criteria for consideration of down/de11sting should be stated. If downlisting is not feasible, this should also be stated. ·I· . . . . . .. ,. ..... A-24 1. A-25 8. A-26 9. A-2710. 55 2 Task 1, which calls for the establishment of safe sites, should also call for the development of management plans for each site. The Narrative for Task 11 should include the development of a Land Protection Plan to determine the best way for the s·ites to be protected. The Narrative for Task 123 should discuss the establi"shment of a buffer zone at the Carlos site, as well as the Speedway site. We are also enclosing, for your consideration, a copy of a letter dated April 24, 1984, from Jackie Poole of the Texas Natural Heritage Program which addresses several topics germane to the recovery plan. We hope these conrnents will assist you 1n the preparation of the final plan for appro¥al. If you disagree with any of these conments, please provide your rationale in a return memorandum. Upon approval of this plan, please provide the Office of Endangered Species with a copy of the approval page and 30 copies of the printed plan when it is available. Attachments 4 . ;. • TO FROM ~--. .. MA'Y ·-lmn'1CIN .... ,..._.(a CPR) ltl-t ... UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT Memorandum 56 : ~egional Director, FWS, Albuquerque, NH (SE) Acting Field Supervisor, FWS, Fort worth, TX (ES) ·. DATE.: April 6, ~~i<;R · - H ,:,~, --. ·-a· ---· . I _ P.1ci!I~ ·-. SUBJECT: Agency Review Draft Recovery Plan -Navasota Ladies' -Tre6ses __ . (Spiranthes parksii) . . l:iA~9.~-~z ---, .,.~ .f..J~E ?""---~-~ -'::' we have reviewed the subject document and offer the following comments. we believe Texas A&M universitY has done an outstanding job in identifying potential impacts and measures needed to protect this endangered species. Please direct any questions concerning this review to '1'011 Cloud or Mike HcCollUll. ~ ... · ,_; United States Dep-; 7 rtment of lhe NATIONAL PARK SERVICE SOtlTHWl-:ST RF.GION 1 nrerior I .. ' \=-~·: .. 1~.-;;:~ I f "j j •·,:.:o:-ij i-~1 ··-·' ----i I :. I P.O. Box 728 i . I!: .... ·.-.· ·= I·-· I ··.:· ··1 ··- IN llEPLY REFER TO: S;.n1a Fe, New Mexico 87!>01 . I . --!~-· . ::·· l ·· -1.. . . ··-- . -- .... : .... ;i.-· -- Nl62l(SWR-ONR) NOV 4 1993 ... Memorandum •· ... 11r To: Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2 , Albuquerque, New Mexico Attention:· Dr. Russell Kologiski From: Regional Director, Southwest Region Subject: Technical Review Drafts and Federal Register Notice Thank you for sending us copies of the technical review draft recovery plans for Spiranthes parksii correll, Eriogonum gypsophilum, Sclerocactus mesae-verdae, Callirhoe scabriuscula, Hedeoma todsenii, Echinocereus viridiflorous, Coryphantha minima, and Hedeoma apfculatum. The majority of these spfcies do not occur on National Park Service administered lands and, thus, w-:vhave no specific comments to make. Our park observation records at Big Bend National Park do indicate the presence of Echinocereus viridiflorous var. davisii; however, Mr. Heil did not show locations within the park for the plant in. his draft recovery plan. Mr. Heil and Mr. Stephen Brack will be researching the distributions of sensitive cactus species in Big Bend this coming summer and their work will detail whether E. v. davisii does, indeed, occur in the park. Hedeoma apiculatu11 occurs in Guadalupe Mountains National Park and we have reviewed that draft recovery plan in more detail. In order to prevent any misunder~tandings, we feel Dr. Irving might state that various trail develop-• ments were already constructed· in Guadalupe Mountains before H. apiculatum became officially listed. Additionally, more discussion and agreement needs to be co.mpleted in regard to ~tem #125 of the Step-Down Outline. The question still remains as to who will monitor and analyze data from the plant populations and on what tl . .e schedule. We have no specific comments on the Federal Register (Vol. 48, No. 197: 46086-46088) announcement proposing to list Styr~ texa~ as an endangered species. cc: Superintendent, Carlsbad Caverns/Guadalupe Mountains Superintendent, Big Bend Pi'S Rl:62 RECEtvEO IOJ 7 '83 SE 58 TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 1700 N. Congress Avenue EXASWATEROEVELOPMENTBOARO Louis A. Beecher!, jr :, Chairman George W. McCleskey, Vic< Chairman Glen E. Roney W. 0 . Bankston Lonnie A. "Bo" Pilgrim Louie Welch Reg ion al Director ... U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service P.O. lk>x 1306 - Albuquerque, New M::?xico 87103 Dear Sir: Austin, Texas . ···~" ~.· Charles E. Nemir Eucutivc Director April 1 7, 1984 Re: Draft Recovery Plan for Spiranthes parksii \E appreciate the opportlD1ity pr0\7ided to the Department for review of the draft iecovery Plan for the Navaoota Ladies' Tresses (Spiranthes parksii Cbrrell). Staff melbers of our Envirorrnental Stu:Ues lliit, Planning and Developnent Division, have revie"'1ed the rep:>rt and offer the following catrnents for your consideration. As the State's principle water resource agency, the Department of water Reoources is charged with the resµ:>nsibilities for water quality protection, water conservation and supply, flood pc-otection, and other water-related • needs. A major part of that resp:>nsibility involves the planning and develo~ · ment of surface water reservoirs to meet the gr()l.i{ing needs and to supplenent current use of the State's ground-water supplies. cpt:.irnal sites for major surface-water reservoirs in the State of Texas are extrenely·limited due to engineering, econanic, envirormental, arrl water availability constraints. '!he authorized Millican Reservoir Project, originally sited on the Navasota River adjacent to the City of Millican, faces just such a dilenma fran these constraints. Jecent efforts have been made by the U.S. Cbrps of Engineers District Office to select an alternative site W'lich w::>uld protect the eo:>nani- cally valuable lignite dep:>sits located in the Bra.ms-Grimes Cbl.D1ty area aoo C:WS REG2 RECEIVED APR 20 '84 SE •• ·---eA•tl" ->-. -. ·"'·:. ···~. A-28 Regional Director Page Tw:> April 17, 1984 59 to pcotect the t\oO i:npulations of the Navaoota Ladies' Tresses identified in the 1979 .field survey. With the mist recent survey (1983), the knoW'l (X>pula- tion for the plant has risen fran 20 individuals in t\oO p.:>pulations to 1,816 individuals at 24 sites in four counties of east-central Texas. Because of the paucity of information and characteristics of the Navaoota River basin in the area of the prop.:>sed project, it is p.:>ssible that the autoorized reservoir could impact some yet mdiscovered p.:>pulations of the plant. It is mlikely, however, that any of the prop.:>sed al t(:rnat ive re5ervoir sites \oOuld have any impact on the t~ Ladies' Tresses p::>pulations identified near Carlos, Texas, ~ the Texas International Speedway, respectively. We concur with recarrnendations to gather a1ditional infonnation to better un:3erst~ the life history of this species. 'lhank you for the opportunity of providing CCJTBrent on the abole referenced recovery plan~ If I can be of further assistance to you or you should require additional inforrnation, please a1vise. Sincerely, JAi~ Olarles E. Nemir ~ Executive Directo,r, - 60 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT A-1 Appropriate changes were made. A-2 The Service agrees that economy is a consideration in recovery plan implementation, and that population biology should receive top prior- ity for research on ~ .... parksii. However, the area occupied by this species is small enough that a thorough study of many aspects of each safe site is feasible. A-3 Methods for marking individual plants, and for census in connection with such marking, has not yet been worked out. The recovery plan provides overall guidance for actions and goals needed for the spe- cies' recovery, but is not intended to be a manual of methods and techniques to be used in the actual work. Monitoring, research, and census techniques will be worked out later and will use up-to-date procedures -administered by reputable botanists. A-4 This is covered under recovery item 22. A-5 This is covered under recovery item 22. A-6 Finding vegetative characters with ~tiich to identify non-flowering S. ~arksii is highly desirable, but may not be possible. Thus, other met ods should also be pursued. A-7 Standard procedure for recovery pl an review includes a technical review followed by revision, and then an agency review followed by additional revision. The plan is then issued as final. Additional review by interested agencies and persons may be done if major revi - sions are made following agency review. This plan received only minor revisions, primarily non-substantive, and additional review would entail unnecessary delay in issuing the plan. A-8 Negotiation of such an agreement or permit is a part of recovery item 11. A-9 Care will be exercised in developing public awareness. Such awareness can help to protect the plants from collectors. A-10 Suggestion was incorporated. A-11 Information noted. A-12 The Service realizes that t here ·are varying op1n1ons in the botanical conwnunity on the taxonomic position of S. parksii. The technical draft of this plan contained a more lengthy taxonomic discussion. Conwnents received on that draft indicated that such involved . . :··! • I I ·I i ·I ·.-.... .. ~ , / .•. ~ - - .. 61 taxon~mic discussion was not relevant to a recovery plan. The exact position of~-parksii in the genus is important to this recovery plan only insofar as it pertains to whether or not S. parksii is a valid and distinct species. The suggested chromosome counts will help to clarify this problem, and this item has been added to the plan. A-13 Suggestion was ... incorporated. A-14 Suggestion was incorporated. A-15 Chromosome counts have been incorporated into the plan. Electrophoretic and flavenoid work are also included as valid possibilities for solving taxonomic and identification problems. A-16 The Service agrees that easement or some fonn of cooperative agreement are a more desirable method for protection of~· larks1i habitat than outright purchase. This i.s set forth in item 1. A-17 See response to A.12. A-18 Suggestion was incorporated. A-19 Suggestion was incorporated. A-20 Suggestion was incorporated. A-21 The information available on the Grimes County site is sparse. Information -known about threats to that population is presented. A-22 Suggestion was incorporated. A-23 Downlisting and delisting criteria were added. A-24 Suggestion was incorporated. A-25 Suggestion was incorporated. A-26 Suggestion was incorporated. A-27 The Texas Natural Heritage conments are addressed under responses A-11 to A-12. A-28 Noted. United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE In Reply Refer To: R2/ES-TE CL 01-0027 Ms. Judy Downs Greenways Program City of College Station P.O. Box 9960 P.O. Box 1306 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 h ttp://ifw2es.fws.gov College Station, Texas 77842 Dear Ms. Downs: I am writing to invite you to serve on the Navasota ladies' -tresses Recovery Team (Team). The Navasota ladies'-tresses (Spiranthes parksii) was listed as endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on May 6, 1982, (47 FR 19539) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The Service has the responsibility to develop a recovery plan for this species. The original recovery plan (enclosed) was written in 1984 and is in need of revision. To assist with this task, we are forming a recovery team. This Team will consist of two subcommittees: a Technical Subcommittee and an Implementation Subcommittee. The Technical Subcommittee will be comprised of scientists with necessary expertise to make recommendations on the biological and ecological needs for species survival and to set biological goals for long-term species conservation. The Implementation Subcommittee will be comprised of persons with expertise relevant to recovery plan implementation, such as land use planning, state and local regulations, etc. The expertise of this Subcommittee will be important in designing recovery strategies that are practical, likely to be implemented, and that minimize social and economic impacts while attaining biological goals. Consultants may also be appointed to the team. Team Consultants are individuals who may be occasionally asked to provide specific information in their area of expertise. In addition, we anticipate, from time-to-time, inviting representatives of various stakeholder groups, environmental consultants, private citizens, developers, other agencies and universities, environmental organizations, etc., to attend meetings to provide specific expertise. I would like to appoint you as a member of the Implementation Subcommittee of the Navasota ladies' -tresses Recovery Team. Your expertise would be invaluable in the revision of the recovery plan. Please see the enclosed table for a complete list of the individuals invited to serve as members of the Technical Subcommittee, the Implementation Subcommittee, and as Consultants to the Team. Recovery teams serve at the pleasure of the Service's Regional Director who has lead responsibility for recovering listed species. Although the role of a recovery team member is strictly advisory in nature, the team's recommendations normally guide the Service, other Federal agencies, and even State government and others in recovery activities. Participation in this recovery planning process is voluntary. The role of a recovery team, and its consultants, are to advise the Service on recovery planning and implementation. The Regional .... Ms. Judy Downs 2 Director, not the recovery team, exercises the Services's authority and responsibility with respect to all recovery actions. Please review the enclosed pages, II-1 to II-7, from our Policy and Guidelines for Planning and Coordinating Recovery of Endangered and Threatened Species (1990) that discusses the role and responsibilities of recovery teams (enclosure 3) and the Notice of Interagency Cooperative Policy on Recovery Plan Participation and Implementation Under the Endangered Species Act (enclosure 4). I anticipate the first meeting taking place by March 2003, followed by two to three additional one- day meetings in 2003. Most of the work can be accomplished via email and individual assignments between meetings. Our present task is to revise the recovery plan. One of the first steps in this process will be for the Technical Subcommittee to develop biological goals and objectives to secure long-term conservation for Navasota ladies' -tresses. The Implementation Subcommittee will recommend to the Technical Subcommittee specific tasks to accomplish these goals. We would like to complete the first draft by September 30, 2003. Once the draft revision is prepared and goes through internal Service review, it will undergo a public review and comment period prior to being finalized. After the plan is finalized, I expect the team to meet less frequently, probably no more than once a year to periodically advise the Service on various matters related to species recovery. If you agree to participate as a member of the Implementation Subcommittee of the Team, please send written acceptance to Charmaine Delmatier of our Austin Office, who will serve as the Service's liaison to the team. You may contact her at the following address: Charmaine Delmatier, Botanist USFWS, Ecological Services Field Office l 0711 Burnet Road, Suite 200 Austin, Texas 78758 TEL. 512-490-0057, extension 233 FAX 512-490-097 4 Charmaine_ Delmatier@fws.gov After we receive written acceptance from you, this letter will serve as your appointment letter to the Team. Once the recovery team is formed, Ms. Delmatier will contact you concerning potential dates for the first meeting. The Service's Austin Office has lead for coordinating recovery of Navasota ladies-tresses, and the team will be working directly with that office. If you have any other questions or comments, please contact Ms. Delmatier or Alisa Shull, Supervisor of the Listing and Recovery Program of our Austin Ecological Services Field Office, at 512-490-0057. I hope you will be able to make this contribution to the preservation of our nation's biological heritage. Sincerely, ~ 6~1] \--Regional Dlfector Enclosures (4) cc: Supervisor, Ecological Services Field Office, Austin, TX Recovery Coordinator, Region 2 (ES) The City of College Station, Texas Embracing the Past, Exploring the Future. P.O. Box 9960 • 1101 Texas Avenue • College Station, TX 77842 • (979) 764-3500 www.ci.college-station.tx.us March 31, 2003 Charmaine elt tier, Botanist USFWS, Ee cal Services Field Office 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200 Austin, Texas 78758 RE : Navasota ladies'-tresses Recovery Team Dear Charmaine, I am writing to officially accept an appointment to serve on the Recovery Team for the Navasota ladies' -tresses. I am honored that you have asked me to assist in this endeavor and look forward to continuing work with you. On another matter, the City sent in the contract documents for their Section 6 grant to TPW today. I have contacted Mr. Paul Clarke and we hope to be able to proceed with this acquisition in the next few months. Sincerely, Judith A. Downs Greenways Program Manager Home of Texas A&M University , -· \ ,, II-1 ORGANIZING THE RECOVERY EFFORT--PERSONNEL CONSIDERATIONS A. Servjce Biologists Service biologists may write recovery plans or act as technical editors, working with either the recovery team or the individual(s) contracted to write the recovery plan. In addition, Service biologis.t.s coordinate, or may actually conduct both management and research-oriented recovery tasks. It is the responsibility of these individuals to collaborate as appropriate with Federal, State, and independent personnel. Service biologists submit budget proposals for recovery activities, they assist State agencies with recovery proposals for Section 6 funds, and ensure coordination of project funding among other agencies. Service biologists knowledgeable of consultation requirements can advise on the likely effects of development or other ·human activities on the species. Such a person could also serve as a future point of contact for persons conducting regulatory programs related to this species/ecosystem group. Service biologists, also often members of the recovery team, may act as the liaison between the Service and the recovery team. B. Species Recovery Coordinators Species recovery coordinators have been established for several listed species with high public visibility or unusually complex recovery programs. A species coordinator serves under the Regional Director as the Service's focal point for all matters relating to recovery of the species. The responsibilities include coordinating research and recovery actions among all involved agencies and individuals and working with Region 9, Division of Endangered Species and/or the Regional Public Affairs Officers to provide a continuing source of public information on the Service's activities and the species' recovery progress. C. Recovery Teams 1. Oescr.iption ~· . .... A recovery team provides biological advice to a lead Regional Director. A team can be established as a species-specific recovery team, such as the Whooping Crane Recovery Team, or as a group or ecosystem -specific recovery team, such as the New Mexico Plant Recovery Team. The recovery team serves only in an advisory capacity to the Service. The Regional Director, not the recovery team, exercises the Service's authority and responsibility with respect to all recovery actions. A team may write the recovery plan for a species or provide technical editing. In appointing a recovery team, a Regional Director should clearly indicate the role it is to play and the products expected of it. A team 05/25/90 11-2 responsible for more than one plan may divide its members into working groups for t.he separate plans . Recovery teams may also be formed to serve strictly in an advisory capacity to _-the Regiona l Director, leaving the plan preparation to a different party. 2. Selection and Appointment Factors for selection of team members are: 1) exper-1ise with respect to the species or the ecosystem in which it is or may once again become a part; 2) current involvement with the species or closely related species; and 3) special knowledge of one or more threats contributing to the listed status of the species. Within size constraints, teams should include individuals of as many disciplinary perspectives as practical and appropriate. However, recovery teams are exempted from the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which would otherwise allow any individual or group to request to be placed on such an advisory group. Teams often include representatives of State, Tribal, or Federal agencies, academic institutions, conservation organizations, and other constituencies with an interest in the species and its recovery. The size of recovery teams is at the discretion of the Regional Director. In certain cases, they may be as small as one or two people; however, a more broadly based team will usually be advantageous. The Regional Director may designate the team leader or allow the team to make the selection. Though in general, it is preferable for the team leader to be a Service employee, the team leader should be selected for his/her knowledge of the species and its related concerns or because of leadership ability. If the team is divided into working groups to prepare more than one plan, a team member is appointed by the team leader to take charge of each group. Teams may also use consultants who offer special expertise but are technically not members of the team. In addition, a team may invite observers from interested organizations, other agencies, universities, and foreign governments to attend team meetings•., __ -.... l.! .-, -· Recovery team members and consultants are appointed by lead Regional Directors with the approval of the prospective team member's employer, and in consultation with the States, other cooperating organizations or foreign governments, and the Director (through Region 9, Divi$ion of Endangered Species) •. Potential nominees should be fully informed by the Regional Director of the implications of team membership such as costs, workload, and time constraints. The appointment letter should explain these items in detail. (A sample appointment letter appears on the following page.) After the recovery plan has been completed, the recovery team may continue to serve indefinitely in an advisory capacity to the Regional Director, and at the Regional Director's request may take an active role in coordinating recovery activities. Public announcements on the selection of recovery team leaders, members, and consultants may be made by the lead Regional Director. A joint, simultaneous announcement of a recovery team appointment by the Service 05/25/90 .. . ~~: ... I 11-3 and a State wildlife agency director may occur where appropriate and if requested. This is especially appropriate for species for which a State plays a central role. 05/25/90 11-5 3. Fish and Wildlife Service Oversight The Service lead Regional Director directs teams through: a. Establishing and terminating teams when appropriate; b. Appointing, removing, and replacing team members and consultants as necessary; c. Approving recovery plans {and their subsequent revisions and updates); d. Developing the team's operating and planning guidelines; and e. Appointing a Service employee as an active team member or team liaison. 4. C011111unications Teams may meet as frequently as necessary. Experience indicates the need for each team to prepare minutes of each meeting and submit them to the Regional Director for distribution to cooperating parties and affected States and other agencies. Reports on accomplishments, such as inventory work, are often presented at. team meetings and should be included in the minutes. Unless the team leader is a Service employee, Service letterhead and franked enveloped should not be used for team business. To do so could imply that the team is expressing Service policy or positions. Official Service letters to a team are directed to the team leader. For species that occur in more than one Region, the lead Region will keep the other involved Region{s) fully informed of team activities. When more than one Region has a team for a given spedes, th~ IU!_gio{l with 1.ead recovery responsibility must carefully coordinate amo~ the teams ;~ 5. Funding Although salary, per diem, and travel costs associated with recovery team activities are normally borne by the members' employing agencies, routine business expenses are borne by the Regional Director. The Regional Director has the discretion of also furnishing travel and related funds for the expense of team members. Service personnel serving on a recovery team are supported by their own station funds. Travel expenses of consultants on team business, clerical and drafting services, supplies, printing costs, ~nd other special services for team business are funded by the lead Region. Observers, however, will cover their own expenses. If the team leader is not a Federal employee, a contract or purchase order may be used for financing routine team business. This agreement can remain in force as long as necessary. As soon as it is determined that 05/25/90 11-6 funds are available for the next fiscal year, the Regional Director will provide the team leader, in writ ing~ with an allotment available to support the team. If the team leader is replaced by another non-government employee, a new agreement must be prepared and signed by the Regional Director and newly appointed team leader. 6. Responsibilities of A Recovery Team In addition to the activities described in the above guidelines, a recovery team mn solely at the request of the Regional Director, provide assistance on other aspects of Service responsibilities toward the species (e.g., Section 7 consultation, identification of critical habitat, and research proposals}. In consultation with the Regional Director, the team also may provide requested assistance to other participating agencies but if, and only if, the team is willing to do so. Should the team provide any policy analysis or reconmendations, the recipient must be cautioned that this information represents the team's views, not necessarily the views of the Service or any other. agency. Recovery teams also may inform interested parties of its activities, as the team considers appropriate. When outside contacts occur, the team must from the beginning accurately describe its relationship to the Fish and Wildlife Service. For the protection of the recovery team members, and in the best interests of species recovery, the recovery team should be mindful of a number of situations that it should avoid. Specifically, it is inappropriate for a recovery team to: --Represent itself as speaking for any agency. --Distribute draft plans. The Regional Director will obtain the views of cooperators, other Federal and State age~ies-, and th~ public. --Independently implement recovery actions. This remains the job of the individual cooperating agencies, although recovery teams may participate in recovery actions with the approval of the Regional Director and appropria~e officials of relevant cooperating agencies. --Act as an official consulting group to anyone other than the Regional Director on socio-economic, political, or administrative issues. --Designate Critical Habitat in the context of Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act. This is the responsibility of the Secretary of the Interior. The team may be requested, or may volunteer, to identify such habitat for the Regional Director. --Call to the attention of offending parties any actions it judges to be adverse to the species. This is the responsibility of the Secretary of the Interior or other Federal or State agencies, as appropriate. The 05/25/90 ...... ,., II-7 team should bring any such actions to the attention of the Regional Director. --Act through the news media, conservation organizations, State or Federal legislators, or other parties to influence any agency decisions, except in so far as the lead Regional Director advises them, in advance. --Reallocate agency responsibilities with respect --to the assigned species or assign responsibilities beyond those approved in the plan. --Prepare Environmental Impact Statements or accept other responsibilities outside its planning assistance roles without the prior concurrence of the Regional Director. Lobby for funds without the concurrence of the Regional Director. Interject itself in litigation or regulatory actions. Pressure cooperating agencies to accept the team's viewpoint. Take any action or represent any concept, either as individuals or as a team, that would adversely affect its professional integrity. These rules are not intended to limit the ability of individuals to perform duties associated with their usual occupation, but are only intended to guide behavior with respect to their roles as members of a recovery team. 7. Contracting The Service may use private contractors to write recovery plans. These individuals may be employees of State conservation agencies, universities, museums, private conservation organizations, or private ~ontracting businesses with relevant expertise. Contrac.tors _may also be used to conduct recovery task projects under separate contracts. · ·· ., _ 05/25/90 • I r . .-:· • ... .,. Federal Register I Vol. 59. No. 126 I Friday, July 1. 1994 I Notices . :14Z7~ DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmosph f. dminlstration Endangered and Threaten jurisdiction of the United States to take (includes harass, harm,. pursue, hunt. shoot. wound. kill, p. capture. or collect: or to attem t any of these), import or export hip in interstate or foreign comm e in the course of commercial •vity. or ~ell or offer for sale in int tate or foreign commerc any end gered fish or wildlife spe es and m threatened fish and wil ife and Plants: Notice of Int gency Cooperative Policy for ndangered - Species Act Section Prohibitions ·-· spe · s. It is also illegal to poss . sell. der er. carry. transport, ors p any AGENCIES: Fish an ildlife Service. s h wildlife that has been en Interior, and Na · nal Marine Fisheries · legally. With respect to dangered Service. Natio Oceanic and plants. analogous prohi itions mak.e it Atmospheric dministration (NOAA). illegal for any person ubject to the Commerce. jurisdiction of the 'ted States to . ACTION: N ce of policy statement. import or export, ansport in interstate or foreign co rce in the course of a SUMMAR : The Fish and WildlH ervice commercial a vity, sell or offer for sale and N · onal Marine Fisheries ervice in interstate r foreign commerce, or to (hereafter referred to as Se · s) remove an reduce to possession any announ~ interagency co rative such pl species fro.m areas under .. policy to establish a P ure at the Federal urisdiction. In addition, for time a species is listed a threatened or end ered plants. the Act prohibits endangered to identify o the maximwn mal. ious damage or destruction of y extent practicable th activities that su species on any area under F eral would or would no onstitute a j · sdiction, and the removal, ting. violation of 6ectio 9 of the Endangered "gging up. or damaging or de oying of Species Act of 1 3 (Act), as amended, any such species on any oth area in and to increase ublic understanding and provide much certainty as .·.knowing violation of any te law or. possible reg Cling the prohibitions n:gul~tion. or in the ~ . of any will apply der section. 9. By . . . , ... : . violation of a State en mal .tre~eass . identifyin activities likely or not kely l~w .. to result i violation of section t the Policy time a s cies is listed. the Se · ces intend t increase public aw ness of It is the poll · of the Services to the eff of the listing on p, posed and identify. to e extent known at the time ongoin activities within species' a species i 'sted, specific activities that range. •will not considered likely to result in EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1 ·. violati n of section S. To the extent FOR FURTHER INFORM poss' le. acti\'ities that will be , Jamie Rappaport C . co idered likely to result in violation 'of Endangered S ·es, U.S. Fish and ·· o v.'ill be identified in ass ecific a Wildlife Servi ARI.SQ 452. 18th and anner as oossible. For tho activities C Streets NW. ashington. DC 20240 whose likelihood of \'iolati n is (telephone 7 /358-2171). or Russell uncertain, a contact will identified b Bellmer, ef, Endangered Species the final listing docume to assist the Divi~ion. ational Marine .Fisherie . public in determining hether a Sel"".'1ce. 335 East-West Highway ilver particular activity wo d constitute a Spnng aryland 20910 (teleph e 301/ prohibited act unde section 9. i13-22). SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMA Background Section 9 of the Act activities that directl~ r indirectly affect endangered s ies. These prohibitions appl~ o all individuals, organizations, agencies subject to United States j ·sdiction. Section 4(d) of the Act all s the promulgation of regulations at apply any or all of the prohibitions of section 9 to threatened species. Under the Act and regulations. it is illegal for any person subject to the Scope of Policy This policy a plies for all species of fish and wild · e and plants, as defined under the A . listed after October 1. 1994. Authori The authority for this policy is the Endarigered Species Act of 1973. as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544). Dated: June 27, 1994. Di~ r. U.S. Fish and Wi: De rtment of the lnteri Dated: June 24. 199 Rolland A. Sclunitt • Assistant Ad min· trot or for Fisheries. Notional Mori Fisheries Sen-ice. (FR Doc. 6023 Filed &-30-94: 8:-15 amJ BILLING COOE 431~ DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE · · ., ., ""\· I'"" •• • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ·"~ Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plaf!ts: Noti.ce ~.f..lnteragenq ..... CoofCfPJAve Policy on Rec~ Plan Parti_£_ on and lmP1emen~~n Under the Endange~ Species Act AGENC1ES: Fish and Wildlife Sen.'ice. Interior, .and National Marine Fisheries' Service. National Oceanic and Aunosphenc Administration (NOAA). Commerce.· ·· ACTIO_N: N.otice ofpolicy statemenL.::-. .~ ' SUMMARY: ine Fish and Wildlife Service ,,.... and National Manne Fisheries serVie:~· ~'"'-0"''~v.:·.; (hereafter referred to as Services) announce interagency policy relative to recovery plan participation and implementation under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. This cooperative policy is intended to minimize social and economic impacts consistent \\'ith timely recovery of · species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as· amended (Act). In addition. this policy provides a Participation Plan process, which involves all appropriate agencies and affected interests in a mutualiv- dcveloped strategy to implem~nt one or more recovery actions. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 1994. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jamie Rappaport Clark. Chief. Di\.;sion ofEndangered Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. ARI.SQ 452. 18th and C Streets NW .• Washington, DC 20240 (telephone 703/358-2171), or Russell Bellmer. OJ..ief. Endangered Species Division. National Marine Fisheries . -. Service. 1335 East-West Highway. Silver Spring. Maryland 20910 (telephone 3011 • •; il3-2322). . ' ~ ·--: ........ . ·Federal Register I Vol. 59. No. 126 I Friday, July 1, 1994 I Notices 34273 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Section 4(0 of the Act directs the Secretary of the Commerce and the Secretary of Interior to develop and implement recovery plans for animal and plant species listed as endangered or threatened, unless such plans would cot promote the conservation of the species. Coordination among State, ··· Tribal or Federal agencies. academic institutions, private indh'iduals and organizations. commercial enterprises, and other affected parties is perhaps the most essential ingredient for recovering a species. Policy To enhance recovery plan development and implementation, while recommending measures that accomplish the goals of a recovery plan. · the Services will: A. Diversify areas of expertise represented on a recovery team. B. Develop multiple species plans when possible. C. Minimize the social and economic impacts of implementing.recovery actions, D. Involve representati.ves of affected groups and provide stakeholders the opportunity to participate in recovery plan development. and E. Develop recovery plans within 2 1/2 years after final listing. (1J Recovery Plan Preparation and Process The method to be used for recovery plan preparation shall be based on ., several factors. including the range or .. ecosystem of the species (limited vs. e::'l."tensive), the complexity of the recovery actions contemplated. the number of organizations responsible for the implementation of the recovery tasks, the availability and expertise of personnel, and the availability of funds. Outside expertise in the form of recovery teams, other Federal agencies. State agency personnel. Tribal governments, private conservation organizations, and private contractors shall be used. as necessary, to develop and implement recovery plans in a timelv manner that will minimize the sociai and economic consequences of plan implementation. Team members should be selected for their knowledge of the species or for expertise in elements of recovery plan desigt" 01 implementation (such as local planning. rural sociology. economics. forestry. etc.). rather than their professional or other affiliations. Teams are to be composed of recognized experts in their fields and ue encouraged to explore all avenues in arriving at solutions necessary to reco\'er threatened or endangered species. Factors for selection of team members are (1) expertise (including current involvement, if possible), with respect to the species, closely related species. or the ecosystem in which.it is or may once again become a part, (2) special knowledge of one or more threats contributing to the listed status of the species and (3) knowledge of one or more related disciplines, such as land use planning. state regulations, etc. The Services also will select team members based on special knowledge essential for the development of recovery implementation schedules, particularly development of Participation Plans that are intended to minimize the social and economic effects of recovery actions. Teams should include representatives of State. Tribal. or Federal agencies. academic institutions, privete individuals and organizations, commercial enterprises, and other constituencies with an interest in the species and its recovery or the economic or social impacts of recovery. (2) lnvolvement of Affected Groups Whether a recovery plan is de,·eloped by the Service's biologists, contractors. or a recovery team. each plan will seek the best information to fulfill the intent of the Act regarding recovery plann,ing. This information and input from · affected interests will be used to develop alternatives for recovery implementation that not only meet requirements for the recovery of a species. but minimize social and economic effects of recovery actions. Representatives of affected interests that can be determined during recovery plan·- development will be asked to participate during plan development and implen1entation. (3) Implementing Reco\•ery Actions Iµiplementation of reco\'ery plans will be accomplished through the means that will pro\ide for timely recovery of the species while minimizing social and economic impacts. The Services will involve all affected interests in the recovery pla.'l implementation process through the development of a Participation Plan. A Participation Plan should involve all appropriate agencies and affected interests in a mutually developed strategy to implement one of more specifically designated reco\·ery e.ctions. Participation Plans should ensure that a feasible strategy is developed for all affected interests while prm.iding realistic and timely reco\·ery of the species. Nothing in this policy is intended to change the current policy of developing reco\-ery plans within 21/z years after final listing of a species (18 months for draft recovery plan and a final recovery plan ·within an additional 12 months of the draft). Scope of Policy The scope of this policvis Servicewide for all species of fish and wildlife and plants. as defined pursuant to sec~~n 3 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1532). Authority The authority for this action is the Endangered ;:ipecies Act of 19i3, as amended (16 U.S.C. 5131-1544). Dated: June 2i, 1994. · Mollie H. Beattie, Director. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sen ice, Department of the Interior. · Dated: June 24; 1994. ------ Rolland A. Schmitten. /\ssis:ant Administrator for Fisheries. Sauona/ Marine Fisheries Sen-ice. (FR Doc. 94-16024 Filed 6-3o-94: 6:~!i aml BILUHG CODE '310-65-P INTERIOR National ace -· ic'affd'Atm"'. phe'iie· · Adminlstrati n Endange and Threat ned Wildlife and Plan : Notice of I ragency Coope ·ve Polley fo the Ecosystem Appr h to the En ngered Species Act AG CIES: Fish an Wildlife Sen;°C:e .. Interior~· and Na · nal Marine Fisheries Sen"ice, Natio Oceanic and Atmospheric dministration (NO .'\). Commerce. ACTION: N ce of policy state SUMMAR • The Fish and Wil 'fe Sen'ice and Na onal Marine Fishe es Service (here er referred to as S 'ices) a!lCO ce interagency P. • cy to incorporate ecosystem onsiderations 1n Endangered Species ct actions regarding listing. in ragency cooperation. recpv ry and cooperati ·c activities. EFFECTIVE DATE' uly 1. 1994. FOR FURTHER I ORMATION CONT Jamie Rappa rt Clark. Chief. hision of Endange Species. U.S. h and Wildlife rvice. ARI.SQ 45 • 18th and C Stree W •• Washingto DC.: 20240 (teleoh ne 703/356-2171 or Russell Bellm r. Chief. Endange Species Navasota Ladies'-tresses Status of Known Sites as of June 16, 2005 Intact sites 71 Roadside 20 BVSMA landfill site-portions to be protected? 1 Transplanted area but NOT mined (TMPA) 7 (to be surveyed this fall if access is available) 100'0 Oaks development-protection of NL T population? 1 Site intact but on double wide trailer development 2 1 + acre tracts Mined (not trahsplanted) 7 Mi ned (transplanted) 21 Stock pc>nd construction 2 Exact location of plants not clear but area under development -large tracts, exclusive homes 4 Missing from data 2 Status unknown 7 Protected Areas TMPA 5 UDITT 2 Villages of Indian Lakes 1 Proposed protected areas within development tract 1000 Oaks development 1 Within BVSMA landfill tract 1 BVSMA to purchase a mitigation tract 1 Former portion of TMPA site C3 currently for sale as residential tracts The above figures reflect sites not included in TPWD records: 2 sites in Brazos Co. - M.K. Parker (roadsides) 4 sites in Grimes Co.-HOR (incl. BVSMA site) Some TMPA recorded sites were not listed in TPWD records if site was considered too small to be a viable population. Update of Population Status and Occurrence Information for Navasota Ladies' Tresses (Spiranthes parks ii) Prepared By James Thomas, HDR, Inc. June,2005 Introduction and Purpose This document provides an update of known populations and habitat of Navasota Ladies' - Tresses (Spiranthes parksii) (NLT). This summary is based on the occurrence records in the Texas Biological Conservation Database (TBCD) and anecdotal information related to recent surveys and occurrences of NLT. The purpose of this summary is to present information on populations not documented in the TBCD (as of May 2004) and provide the latest information on known NLT populations for consideration. Additionally, the document was prepared to provide the NLT Recovery Team with additional information that may not be incorporated into the TBCD at this time and a summary presented in a manner which may assist in decision-making related to the revised Recovery Plan and future adaptive management plans. Background Based on current scientific data, survey results, and anecdotal information available for NLT, HDR prepared a table in 2004 to assist in updating the recorded information available in the TBCD maintained by Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept. (TPWD) in Austin, Texas. Previous review of incomplete or dated records resulted in conclusions that known NL T populations, not including those being extirpated by previous approved activities, are undergoing a decline. HDR biologists met with Dr. Fred Smeins and Ms. Kathie Parker in May 2004 to review the TBCD records in order to update the information related to known populations and occurrence locations visited more recently than documented in the TBCD. A table was submitted to the USFWS entitled 2004 NLT Status Update Table which provided a summary of the review. Subsequently, the Fall 2004 survey season resulted in identification of populations in two additional counties, as well as increased numbers associated with new and existing populations in Brazos County. The following information is important recorded and anecdotal information for understanding the natural history, current status, and future management considerations for NLT. Overview of Known NLT Occurrences: 1. Of the 141 recorded and/or confirmed occurrences (including Bastrop and Limestone county sites recorded in 2004), 82 records occurred on property belonging to TMP A, which was surveyed extensively in support of the Gibbons Creek Lignite Mine permit. 2. An estimated 43 of the known occurrences are either extirpated, have not been recorded in several decades, or consisted of transplanted plants that presumably did not survive. 3. Of the 82 sites located on TMPA property: a. 4 7 are still intact, b. 24 were extirpated during mining activities, c. 7 are made up of transplanted plants from 13 of the mined sites, d. 4 of the sites were re-identified as part of a 2003 survey for a proposed TMP A rail spur project and included a total of 23 plants in 3 populations. 4. Approximately 24 of the 141 recorded sites were identified along roadsides adjacent to private property. An assessment of the extent of potential habitat on the adjacent properties has not occurred. 1 5. Many of the NLT occurrence records are associated with sites which have undergone light to moderate surface soil disturbance (i.e. roadsides, pipeline ROW, etc.) resulting in reduced competition with herbaceous and woody growth. 6. Based on information compiled by HDR with assistance from Kathie Parker and Dr. Fred Smeins there are approximately 98 known NLT occurrence locations of which all, or some portion, of the habitat is intact. 7. Extirpated or presumed extirpated populations include the 24 populations impacted by the TMP A mine project, the Jewett Mine population, and several private development and roadway project sites. 8. Nine (9) additional NLT populations have been identified which were not recorded in the TBCD as of May 2004. These include the BVSWMA landfill site, four sites along the proposed TMP A rail spur; a roadside observation in Robertson County; and new populations in Brazos, Bastrop, and Limestone counties .. 9. Many occurrence records are based on a limited number of site visits, which may result in a significant underestimate of the total population size and extent of habitat. 10. Many previous surveys were likely based on guidance that surveys should focus on areas within 300 feet of streams. However, recent and more comprehensive surveys have identified plants up to 1000 feet from the nearest ephemeral stream channel. This could have resulted in populations which were not identified during surveys and/or underestimates of total population counts for recorded sites. 11. Protected Sites include: a. TMPA Cl: Area: unknown, High Count: 189 (Owned with 30yr Cons. Easement) b. TMP A C2: Area: unknown, High Count: 229 (Owned) c. TMP A C3: Area: 17 acres, High Count: 75 (Owned) d. TMP A C4. Area: approx 100 acres, High Count: 400 (Leased) e. TMP A CS. Area: unknown, High Count: 33 (Unkown) f. Lick Creek Park: Area: approx 75 acres, limited-use conservation area. High Count: approximately 70 (Protected by park Master Plan) g. Indian Lakes Conservation Site: Area: 32 acres, High Count: 200+ (Permanent Deed Restriction)~~ h. TxDOT Hwy 6: Area: unknown, High Count: 1000+ (Owned) i. Angelina National Forest: Area: less than 1 acre, High Count: 10+ j. Others? Life History, Pressures, and Management Issues: 1. The above-ground expression ofNLT consists of two phases: a) a basal rosette ofleaves in mid-spring; and b) a flowering stalk in late October to early November. This life history is presumably an adaptation to warm-season fire and low moisture availability in the summer. 2. NL T floral expression fluctuates significantly and is influenced by soils, rainfall, landscape position, herbivory, and competition. 3. Fluctuating numbers of individuals within a site between survey years can be attributed to a combination of factors, including short flowering season, herbivory, and extreme flowering variability between years due to climactic conditions and possibly natural cyclical effects. 4. NLT are known to occur with areas of light to moderate surface soil disturbance (i.e. clearing, grazing, pipeline activities, stream banks, road sides, etc.) which reduce the competition with herbaceous and woody growth, increase light availability, and promote germination. A good example of this is the TxDOT SH 6 mitigation site response of 1000+ individuals following bull dozer clearing activities. This indicates the plant 2 tolerates light topsoil disturbance, which may also stimulate seed germination and floral expression through reduced competition and creation of optimum conditions. 5. Known populations in habitats which undergo an increase in woody growth, or "thicketization," exhibit a decrease in occurrence of flowering individuals, presumably due to shading and competition effects. The TxDOT SH 6 site provides an example of this natural response. 6. Mature NLT plants can persist for prolonged periods (5 to 10 years) under non-optimal conditions (i.e. thick herbaceous cover or drought) due to the development of a relatively large underground tuber. Examples of this are illustrated from the surveys conducted by Kathie Parker on the TMPA 'protected sites' (Attachment A). 7. Anecdotal evidence indicates Spiranthes, including S. parksii, are a preferred forage for herbivores common in the region (e.g. white-tailed deer, eastern cottontail rabbits, and possibly feral pig [tubers]). 8. Floral expression is difficult to predict and effectively evaluate due to a complex combination of effects from rainfall, temperature, canopy/grass density, subsurface soil moisture, and herbivory. For example, Dr. Fred Smeins reported that, the Fall 2003 population on the Indian Lakes Development conservation area totaled over 100 plants. This total was the cumulative result of 5 to 6 surveys during which the highest total was approximately 25 plants, and on a site for which the highest total in previous years was approximately 48 plants. This site was resurveyed in Fall 2004 by the owner and 200+ plants were identified in the same study area. Discussion of Potential Population in Known Locations and Other Sites According to the 1984 Recovery Plan, approximately 1,8 16 individual plants had been observed by 1983. The Recovery Plan authors hypothesized that approximately 75% of the individuals were not located during the surveys due to natural factors, and they interpolated the potential populations on those sites to be as high as 5,448 individuals. Subsequent more extensive surveys for projects requiring state and federal permits have identified much higher total numbers than estimated in the 1984 Recovery Plan. Parker (2001) states the recorded number of individuals on known sites was 5,024. Based on the known locations and 2004 surveys, HDR also estimates the number of individuals on intact habitat sites to be approximately 5,000 to 5,200 plants. HDR's survey results on BVSWMA concur with Parker's findings based on fluctuations on the TMPA protected sites, which indicate it is probable the actual number of plants is well above the current counts at recorded locations. This assumption is further supported by the findings of Fall 2004 surveys on the Indian Lakes Development conservation areas conducted over several weeks which resulted in a total population count of approximate five times the previous count (200+ versus 48) (pers. comm. Dr. Fred Smeins, TAMU and Robert Rayburn, Clarke &Wyndham). Based on the location of known populations across a relatively large known range of 12 counties, many of which are known only from roadside occurrences, HDR estimates that less than 5% of the potential NLT habitat has been thoroughly surveyed. Further, many of those surveys were not conducted using multiple site visits and in "good" years for NLT floral expression. Therefore, the author believes the population for NLT within the known range and particularly in Brazos, Grimes, Robertson, and potentially Somerville counties are likely much higher than currently known. 3 References Parker, K. 2001. A Compendium on Spiranthes parksii, Correll (Navasota Ladies'-Tresses). Tejas Ecological Services. Prepared for Texas Municipal Power Agency. College Station, Texas. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Navasota Ladies' Tresses Recovery Plan. Albuquerque, New Mexico. Texas Parks & Wildlife Department. 2004. Texas Biological Conservation Database. Navasota Ladies'-Tresses occurrence data. May 2004. 4 ATTACHMENT B: FIGURE 1. GRAPH DEPICTING FLUCTUATIONS IN BLOOM COUNTS, FROM 1984 TO 2003, ON THE 'PROTECTED AREA' SITES Cl-CS ON THE GIBBONS CREEK LIGNITE MINE (GCLM) IN GRIMES COUNTY, TEXAS (Prepared by K. Parker for TMPA) • 4 •• c ~ _J 0 CJ Q) ..c ...... c 0 I.!) 0 I ..... 0 (/) Q) ...... ·u; -<13 Q) ~ "'O Q) ...... (.) Q) 0 .... a.. Q) ..c ...... c 0 ct) 0 0 C\J 0 ...... E 0 .... ...... (/) ...... c ::l 0 (.) E 0 0 .0 c (/) c 0 :;:::; C1l ::l ...... (.) ::l ;:;::: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0) co !"'-c.o l() 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 C'I) C\J 0 0 ,..... 0 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 Scientific Name: Spiranthes parksii Correll Synonyms: None. Common Name: Navasota ladies-tresses Global/State Ranks: G3S3 Federal Status: Endangered - Global Range: Endemic to post oak belt of northeast Texas. State Range: Brazos, Burleson, Freestone, Grimes, Jasper, Lee, Leon, Madison, Robertson and Washington counties; also Milam County per Kathy Parker, pers. comm. 14 Dec 1994 [**WRC: if this is mapped, we can remove the pers. comm. source.] Description (adapted from Correll 1947; Catting & Mclntosh 1979; Poole 1985): Perennial from fleshy fasciculate roots; stems erect, unbranched, 2-3.3 dm tall, glandular-pubescent in upper portion, provided with several tubular, acuminate sheaths. Leaves basal, absent at flowering time. Flowers creamy white, usually with yellow-green markings toward the center, arranged in a single, spirally- twisted, vertical row in a terminal spike ca. 5 cm long and l cm wide, the axis glandular-pubescent, the floral bracts ovate-lanceolate, concave, 8-10 mm long, acuminate, usually white-tipped; sepals 3, pubescent on the outer surface, 3-nerved, longer than the petals; dorsal sepal ovate-elliptic to broadly ovate-lanceolate, abruptly recurved at the acute-apic ul ate apex, deeply concave, ca. 6 mm long and 2.8 mm wide below the middle; lateral sepals narrowly triangular-lanceolate, acuminate, oblique, with involute margins, ca. 7 mm long and 2-2.5 mm wide below the middle; petals 3, adherent to the dorsal sepal, oval to obovate or suborbicular, rounded and sometimes irregularly notched at the apex, with the anterior margin more or less erose, 5-nerved, scarcely oblique, ca. 5 mm long and 2.5-3 mm wide; lip petal oval, broadly rounded or emarginate at the apex, minutely erose-laciniate on the upcurved margins, 5-5.5 mm long and 3.8-4 mm wide at about the middle; lateral petals with a conspicuous central green stripe; basal callosities stout, pubescent; column short, stout, ca. 3.5 mm long. Fruit a capsule; details undescribed . . ~· ...... H!!bitat: Margins.of postsoak (Quercusstellatct~,..woodlan.ds in sandy loams-along.inteonitt-ent.stre.ams-,. ofte_n. in areas· where edaphic of hydrologic factors , such as high aluminum content of s·oil and a perched · water table, limit competing vegetation in the herbaceous layer. Associated species include Gratiola .flava, Baptisia leucophaea, Chaetopappa asteroides, Pityopsis graminifolia, Spiranthes gracilis var. gracilis, S. cemua, Heleastrum hemisphaericwn, Panicum brachyanthum, Sporoholusjunceus, Andropogon temarius, A. virginicus, Schizachyriwn scuparium, Muhlenbergia capillaris, Drosera annua, Pterocaulon virgatwn and Aristida longespica (USFWS 1984). Phenology: Flowering late October-early November. Similar Species: Navasota ladies'-tresses is very much like and often gr.ows with several other Spiranthes species, including S. gracilis var. gracilis and S. cemua. According to Liggio & Liggio ( 1999), the short, rounded, creamy-white petals with a central green stripe, the oval lip, and the white-tipped floral bracts distinguish Spirwzthes parksii from the others. According to Correll & Johnston (l 970), "the characteristically obovate petals and oval lip are distinctive and conveniently separate this species from all other species of Spiranthes found in Texas." Comments: Listed as Endangered on 6 May 1982. Illustrations: Line drawings of various features appear in the recovery plan (USFWS 1984 ). A line drawing and a color photograph of the inflorescence appear in Poole & Riskind (1987). Additional color photographs appear in Liggio & Liggio ( 1999). Selected References: Calling, P. M. and K. L. Mclntosh. 1979. Rediscovery of Spiranthes parksii Correll. Sida 8: 188-193. Correll, D.S. 1947. A new Spiranthes from Texas. American Orchid Society Bulletin 16: 400. Liggio, J. and A. 0. Liggio. 1999. Wild orchids of Texas. University of Texas Press, Austin. 228 pp. Mahler, W. F. 1980. Status report [on Spiranthes parksii]. Report to U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Albuquerque. MacRoberts , M. H., B. R. MacRoberts and R. E. Evans. 1997. Notes on Spiranthes parksii Correll (Orchidaceae) in deep east Texas. Phytologia 83(3 ): 133-137. Poole, J. M. 1985 . Endangered Species Information System species workbook for Spiranthes parksii. Report prepared for U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Region 2. Poole, J. M. and D. H. Riskind. 1987. Endangered, threatened, or protected native plants of Texas. Texas Parks & Wildlife Department, Austin. Looseleaf binder with periodic updates , no pagination. Tejas Ecological Services. 1992. A report on the 1991-1992 survey/monitor/transplant program for Navasota ladies tresses on the Gibbons Creek Lignite Mine, Grimes County, Texas. Report prepared for Texas Municipal Power Agency, Bryan . U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 1984. Navasota ladies'-tresses (Spiranthes parksii) recovery plan. Report prepared for U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Albuquerque. Wilson,-H: D. 1988 . Progress-report, population biology/distribution of Sfiircmthesparksii,~Sundew Creek"""'- population, Lick Creek Park, College Station, Texas. Unpublished report, Department of Biology, Texas A & M University , College Station. Wilson, H. D. and G. Ajilvsgi . 1983. Status report [on Spiranthes parksii]. Report prepared for U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Albuquerque. • ... Habitat Conservation and Adaptive Management Plan Template for Navasota Ladies'-Tresses (Spiranthes parksii), Purpose The purpose of the Plan is to provide details of habitat conservation and adaptive management efforts to preserve extant plants and offset the loss of plants impacted by the XXX project. The goal of the plan is to offset the loss of and potentially increase the total number of plants through recruitment from known NLT populations in XXX Counties. This will be accomplished through a combination of conservation and adaptive management measures including (1) property acquisition of documented habitat, (2) on-site plant propagation, (3) habitat protection and management, (4) off-site protection and management, and (5) potential future property acquisition. Future property acquisition may be necessary if plant recruitment does not meet goals after an X to X year management period. A. Background 1. Summary of Survey Findings 2. Description of Existing Condition of Site 3. History of Land Use and Management of Habitat (review of historical aerial photography, interviews with landowners, etc.) 4. Assessment of occupied and potential habitat on site. 5. Description of project components and anticipated impacts B. Habitat Conservation and Adaptive Management Plan Section 1 -Habitat Conservation a. Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts b. On-Site Preservation of Habitats (w/ Deed Restriction) c. Off-Site NLT Habitat Acquisition (w/ Deed Restriction) Section 2 -Management and Plant Conservation a. On-Site Management and Plant Material Conservation I . Prescribed Burning Management 2. On-Site "No Burn " Thicket Management: Management measures may consist of one or more of the following: (1) mechanical and/or manual clearing and (2) application of herbicide for continued control of woody midstory plants. 3. Seed Collection and Propagation • Wildlife exclosures constructed around NLT sub-populations, • mature inflorescences and seeds will be collected and preserved, and • seed distribution to protected sites *Based on anecdotal information, NLT seed germination appears to occur at a higher rate in areas with exposed, lightly disturbed, or "scarified" soils, which allow increased exposure to sunlight and reduced vegetative competition. 4. Transplantation • During the initial construction phase, plants not included in wildlife exclosures and located within the project area, will be transplanted to protected conservation areas. b. Off-Site Management -Management techniques to be applied to off-site habitat (previously protected or acquired) to control woody vegetation and manage toward optimal conditions for NLT. Section 3 -Adaptive Management Options a. Adaptive Vegetation Management Program OWNER will initiate an adaptive vegetation management plan within potential NLT habitat in on-site deed-restricted areas and off-site conservation areas. Vegetation management techniques implemented will be based on the findings from surveys of managed, on-site protected areas and other NL T research activities. Proposed activities may include the following: 1. Prescribed Burning Management 2. On-Site "No Burn" Thicket Management 3. Controlled Grazing Program b. Adaptive Plant Propagation If the seed collection and propagation activities prove to be more successful than transplantation efforts, resources may be shifted to develop and manage additional exclosures to allow collection of greater quantities of NLT seed. Conversely, if the transplantation activities prove to be more successful in propagating viable plants, resources may be shifted to transplanting. c. Potential Habitat Acquisition Following the implementation of conservation and management activities described in Sections 1-3 of the Plan, OWNER and USFWS will evaluate the success and potential of these measures to offset the loss of XXX NLT plants in the deed- restricted areas If the measures are determined to be ineffective at offsetting losses, or are too cost prohibitive to continue, OWNER will evaluate other methods for meeting the conservation goals, which could include acquisition, preservation, and management of currently known or newly identified NLT populations to replace the number of plants in impacted areas. • r Section 4 -Reporting OWNER will prepare an annual report, for submittal to the USFWS, detailing activities described in this Plan. The report will include the following: 1. Verification of deed-restrictions, land acquisition activities, and initiation of the conservation measures in accordance with Plan. 2. Annual summary of pre-construction surveys, herbivore exclosure construction, and seed propagation and transplantation activities. Key information will include the number of plants transplanted with sub-meter GPS locations and marker information for each plant. 3. Annual documentation of woody plant management activities, including mechanical/manual clearing activities, controlled burning, chemical control, and grazing. Required information will include: a. acres treated, b. date of treatment, c. preliminary assessment of success, and d. relevant observations to future management activities. 4. Summary of annual surveys of on-site, deed-restricted, and off-site areas for number of propagated/reclaimed plants within the protected sites as a result of seeding, transplantation, and management activities. Key information will include the number of plants transplanted with sub-meter GPS locations and marker information for each plant. EO# COUNTY 1 Brazos 2 Leon 3 Brazos 4 Brazos 5 Brazos 6 Grimes 7 Grimes 8 Robertson 9 Brazos 10 Brazos 11 Brazos 12 Grimes 13 Grimes 14 Grimes 15 Grimes 16 Grimes '.,,, .. 17. Grimes · 18 Grimes 19 Grimes 31 Grimes /YlVP ~ QUADNAME Wellborn Margie Ferguson Crossing Clear Lake Ferguson Crossing Ferguson Crossing Anderson Dunn Creek Wellborn Canary Reliance Navasota Ladies . resses Locations RANK LASTOBS 1946 1986 1979 c c 1986 1986 1984 1983 1983 1995 1982 1982 1984 1984 1984 1984 EODATA Specimen infrequent; specimen insect-damaged; S. cernua at site; questionable record 2 plants noted Part of population impacted or destroyed by excavation for lake 3 plants in flower Three plants in 1983 survey total of 56 plants in 1995 31 plants in flower 1984 11 plants in flower 1984 35 plants in flower 1 plant in flower 1984 2 plants in flower . 2000 .. · · 139 plants in 1984; 1985-85; 1986-231; 1987-65; 1988-17; 1989-21; . : : .-: :< ~· ... 1990-41; 1991-240;1997-46; 1998-34; 10in2000 5 plants in flower ·. -~· : 1984 1998 151 plants in 1984; .58 plants in 1985; 213 in 1986; 109 in 1987; Carlos B x x x x x x x .. 2000 1984 1984 1986 1984 1984 1994 1998 1984 1998 1986 115 in 1988; 32in1989; 119in1990; 182 in 1991; 176 in 1997; 47 in 1998 Plants marked for stqdies. 14~ plants in 1984; 1985-70 plants; 1986-63; 1987~ 37; 1988-7; 1989~ 31; 1990-10; 1991-16; 1992-195; 1993-81; 1994-· 216; .1995-200; 1997-126; 1998-20; 2000-7 plants. 22 plants, 1984; 8 plants TRANSPLANTED to protected area C2 in1986 1 plant in flower 24 plants; 49 plants TRANSPLANTED 1986 to protected area C2 10 plants in flower; MINED 1 plants in flower; TRANSPLANTED 1986 15 plants in flower; TRANSPLANTED Spring 1994 11 plants in flower in 1984; 1985~. 8; 1989-11; 1990-12; 1991-14; 1992-1; ·· · 1993-\12; 1994-H; 1995~ 31; 1997-3; 1994-11; 1995-31; 1998-5 plants 1 plant in flower 45 plants in 1984; 18 plants in 1985; 197 plants tentatively ID'ed as S. parksii TRANSPLANTED INTO site in 1986; 1987-8 native+ 12 transplanted; 1988-:-18 N +J8 T; 1990-6 N; 1991· 55 N +10 T; 1992-25 N; 1993-47 N; ··" 1994.:229 N; 1995.;161 N; ·1998-27 N; 2000-O flowering. 25 plants in flower - 7/3/01 Navasota Ladies' -• (esses Locations 2 7/3/01 EO# COUNTY QUADNAME RANK LASTOBS EODATA 32 Grimes Carlos x 1986 3 plants in flower 33 Grimes Carlos 1984 1 plant in flower 34 Grimes Carlos 1988 1984-14 plants in flower; 1988-2 plants in flower 35 Grimes Ferguson Crossing 1984 83 plants in flower 36 Grimes Ferguson Crossing 1985 4 plants in flower 37 Grimes Ferguson Crossing 1984 1 plant in flower 38 Grimes Ferguson Crossing x 1986 1 plant in flower;.TRANSPLANTED 1986 39 Grimes Ferguson Crossing x 1986 1 plant in flower; extirpated by feral hogs; 4 plants TRANSPLANTED 1986 40 Grimes Ferguson Crossing x 1986 2 plants in flower; 12 plants TRANSPLANTED 1986 41 Grimes Ferguson Crossing x 1986 12 plants in flower; 39 plants TRANSPLANTED 1986 42 Grimes Ferguson Crossing x 1986 6 plants in flower; TRANSPLANTED FALL 1986 43 Grimes Ferguson Crossing x 1984 10 plants in flower; MINED before Spring 1986 44 Grimes Ferguson Crossing x 1984 1 plant in flower; MINED 45 Grimes , Ferguson Crossing x 1984 3 plants; no rosettes found to transplant 46 Grimes Ferguson Crossing 1984 5 plants in flower 47 Grimes Ferguson Crossing 1984 9 plants in flower 48 Grimes Ferguson Crossing 1984 3 plants in flower 49 Grimes Ferguson Crossing 1984 9 plants in flower 50 Grimes Roans Prairie 1985 In flower; 6 S. parksii 51 Grimes Roans Prairie 1985 1 O S. parksii at 2 sites 52 Grimes Roans Prairie 1991 In flower; atypical habitat; 19 S. parksii 53 Grimes Carlos 1985 1989-16 flowering plants; 1990-3 flowering plants 54 Grimes Carlos x 1994 In flower; typical habitat; 8 S.parksii 55 Grimes Carlos 1985 In flower; 5 S. parksii 56 Grimes Carlos x 1994 In flower; 2 S. parksii 57 Grimes Roans Prairie 1985 In flower; 2 S. parksii 58 Grimes Roans Prairie 1985 In flower; 1 S. parksii 59 Grimes Roans Prairie 1985 In flower; 10 S. parksii 60 Grimes Roans Prairie 1985 In flower; 2 S. parksii 61 Grimes Roans Prairie 1985 In flower; 2 S. parksii 62 Grimes Singleton 1985 In flower; 5 S. parksii 63 Grimes Carlos x 1994 In flower; 2 S. parksii 64 Grimes Carlos 1985 In flower; 5 S. parksii, at 2 sites 65 Grimes Carlos 1985 In flower; 3 S. parksii 66 Grimes Carlos 1985 In flower; 3 S. parksii 67 Grimes Carlos 1985 In flower; 9 S. parksii at 2 sites 68 Grimes Carlos 1993 9 flowering plants fln~fiflM 11~6lJ fh;"~ 69 Jasper Ebenezer B 1997 6 sterile plants, one flowering plant Navasota Ladies , resses Locations 3 7/3/01 EO# COUNTY QUADNAME RANK LASTOBS EODAT A 70 Brazos Fer uson Crossin A 1986 At least 70 lants, most in flower 10-24-86 71 Burleson Snook C 1986 25 plants along roadside, 10 in adjacent woodlands 1986. 80 plants in 1983. 72 Grimes Clear Lake 1983 5 plants in 1983 73 Brazos Millican C 1986 Only a few flowering plants scattered in the area. 74 Leon Hilltop Lakes 1987 13 plants on 11 -9-87; flower spike verified by Dr. Charles Sheviak on 9-13-88 75 Washington Somerville 76 Madison Connor 77 Robertson Camp Creek Lake 78 Robertson Camp Creek Lake 79 Robertson Hearne South 80 Grimes Carlos 81 Grimes Carlos 82 Grimes Navasota 83 Grimes Carlos 84 Brazos Canary 85 Brazos Edge 86 Brazos Clear Lake 87 Brazos Kurten 88 Brazos Millican 89 Brazos Millican 90 Brazos Ferguson Crossing 91 Brazos Ferguson Crossing 92 Brazos Ferguson Crossing 93 Brazos Wellborn 94 Brazos Millican 95 Madison Madisonville 1987 96 Brazos Clear Lake 1987 Large population of S. parksii and S. cernua 97 Freestone Donia 1991 28 plants in 3 groups in 1991 98 Brazos ···· Fer uson Crossin 1993 CA. 1000 Ian ts in full flower on 15-16 November 1993 99 Fayette Fayetteville 1994 1 plant in flower; 3 other plants intermediate bet. S. parksii a d 100 Brazos Wellborn 1993 16 plants in 1993 101 Brazos Wellborn 1993 45 plants 102 Brazos Millican 1993 112 plants; very localized population 103 Brazos Millican 1993 76 plants; scattered population 104 Brazos Millican 1993 6 plants 105 Brazos Clay 1993 Total of 38 plants 106 Milam Goodwill 1993 3 plants over large area 107 Robertson Camp Creek Lake 1997 3 plants Navasota Ladies . resses Locations 4 7/3/01 EO# COUNTY QUADNAME RANK LASTOBS EODATA 108 Robertson Camp Creek Lake 1997 1 plant 109 Robertson Camp Creek Lake 1997 2 subpopulations; 4+ 7 plants 110 Grimes Carlos 1986 3 flowering plants 111 Grimes Carlos x 1987 98 flowering plants in 96; TRANSPLANTED in 97 112 Grimes Ferguson Crossing x 1986 I plant; TRANSPLANTED 113 Grimes Ferguson Crossing x 1986 2 plants; TRANSPLANTED; AREA SCHEDULED FOR MINING 114 Grimes Carlos 1990 21 flowering plants in 1986 115 Grimes Carlos x 1986 1 plant; TRANSPLANTED 116 Grimes Carlos x 1986 1 plant; TRANSPLANTED 117 Grimes Carlos x 1986 1 plant; TRANSPLANTED 118 Grimes Carlos 1986 3 flowering plants 119 Grimes Carlos 1986 3 flowering plants 120 Washington Flag Pond 1988 19 plants TRANSPLANTED TO THIS SITE in 1986; 2 flowering plants in 1988; 1991 & 99 NO flowering plants 121 Burleson Somerville 1988 73 elants TRANSPLANTED TO THIS SITE in 1986 & Mar 87; 8 flowering plants in NOV 87; 1991 and 97 NO flowering plants 122 Grimes Carlos x 1988 3 flowering plants in 1987; TRANSPLANTED 123 Grimes Carlos 1988 3 flowering plants 124 Grimes Carlos 1988 2 flowering plants 125 Grimes Carlos x 1992 30 plants in 1988; 24 plants REMOVED in 1992; MINED 126 Grimes Carlos 1988 41 flowering elants 127 Grimes Carlos 1988 128 Grimes Carlos 1988 1 flowering plant 129 Grimes Carlos 1988 19 flowering plants 130 Grimes Carlos 1991 2 flowering plants 131 Grimes Carlos 1991 1 flowering plant 132 Grimes Carlos 1993 3 plants 133 Jasper Ebenezer 1996 2 flowering plants 134 Brazos Ferguson Crossing 2000 Total of 48 elants in 3 subeoeulations 135 Grimes Carlos x 1994 5 flowering plants in 1989 + 90; TRANSPLANTED Spring 94 136 Grimes Keith 1989 1 flowering plant 137 Grimes Carlos 1990 3 flowering plants 138 Grimes Carlos 1993 4 flowering plants 139 Grimes Carlos 1994 3 flowering plants A MODERN EVALUATION OF THE STATUS OF SPIRANTHES PARKSII INTRODUCTION Spiranthes parksii Correll was described in 1947 and was not collected again until 1978 (Catling and Mcintosh, 1979) apparently due to confusion about its preferred habitat, which is along drainages in upland woods. Spiranthes parksii was listed as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 on 6 May 1982 (Smith, 1982). The initial Recovery Plan was produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1984). · The most recent and detailed work on _S_. parksii was done by Wilson (web pages). Wilson began working on .S.. parksii in the early l 980's and focused on a population of plants at Lick Creek Park, a 500 acre undeveloped park owned by the City of College Station. Wilson (web page) includes a detailed description of the distribution of .S.. parksii. It has been found in 9 counties, with most of the populations and individuals in Grimes and Brazos counties, the apparent center of distribution. Populations in the other 7 counties are few and small in size. While S. parksii occurs in a very limited type of naturally disturbed site it is not capable of colonizing disturbed sites such as power line cuts, roadways, etc. The listing of .S.. parksii as an endangered species has apparently had little impact on its conservation, with habitat loss from numerous activities occurring at a rapid pace, particularly in Grimes and Brazos counties. The populations in Grimes and Brazos counties have been heavily impacted by strip mining, road construction, and urban development. The large, presumably "safe" population in Lick Creek Park has been impacted by mountain bikes, feral pigs, and cattle from adjacent pastures. This plant occurs in open areas at the upper end of drainages in upland woods where numerous "illegal" bike trails have appeared in Lick Creek Park in prime .S.. parksii habitat. On 5 July, 2001, a meeting was held in College Station, TX, to develop a working group dedicated to the recovery of Spiranthes parksii. This meeting was attended by representatives from USFW, Army Corps of Engineers, TXDOT, TPWD, the City of College Station, and Texas A&M University (including H.D . Wilson and J.R., Manhart). Several goals were identified, including determination of the heaviest impact sites and possible habitat preservation sites. Th~ decisions reached by this working group should be based on sound and recent information; anJ a detailed knowledge of the biology of these plants wiii be key in planning its recovery. PROPOSED RESEARCH Numerous technological advances with proven utility in conservation programs have occurred since 1984, including molecular-genetic markers and GPS/GIS. Recent investigations of other rare members of the genus Spiranthes have provided important information about the types of research that will be useful in the development of a recovery plan for S. parksii (McClaran and Sundt, 1992; Sipes and Tepedino, 1995). We are proposing the following research: I. Define the evolutionary origin of S.. parksii An understanding of the evolutionary origin of .S.. parksii will play an important role in conservation planning and assessment. Phylogenetic relationships of .S.. parksii and morphologically similar orchids, including various forms of .S.. cemua, will be determined using analyses of nuclear and chloroplast encoded DNA sequences and DNA microsatellite markers. II: Define the critical habitat requirements and current population status of S. parksii The OPS position will be determined for every known individual of S.. parksii examined in this study. The points will be entered into a computer program that over-lays the positions on top of an aerial and satellite photographs to provide an overhead view of the species' distribution. Soil samples (4" x l" core) will be taken at all sites and will be analyzed at the TAMU Soil, Forage and Water Testing Lab for particle size, percolation rate, organic matter, pH, conductivity, and macro-and micronutrients. A microfloristic inventory of all vegetation within lOm of each population will be undertaken to identify possible interspecific interactions (Hugh Wilson's data and other studies will serve as a baseline). This information will comprise additional ors layers and will be included in the over-head distribution model of the Spiranthes populations. The data will then be analyzed with a multi-variant clustering program that will help predict potential Spiranthes habitat. Fieldwork will be conducted in the areas of potential habitat in order to survey for existing populations of Spiranthes that may have been previously overlooked, contingent upon gaining access permission from land owners. In addition, the area will be surveyed for potential habitat suitability for any future re- introductions of greenhouse grown Spiranthes. III. Define the breeding system of Spiranthes and genetic structure of S.. parksii populations. The breeding system, population structure and reproductive dynamics of the species will be examined, including the levels of apomixis, inbreeding and outcrossing, within- population genetic variation, and among-population genetic partitioning. This approach will allow an estimation of effective population sizes, gene flow between populations, and overall genetic diversity, and will provide insight into the origin(s) of S. parksii. We will develop suites of DNA microsatellite markers (which are suited to these types of analyses) from S. parksii and .S..,. cernua to allow a comparison of the breeding systems of the widespread and diverse .S..,. cernua with that of S. parksii and to determine if there is gene flow between S.. cernua and S.. parksii . This work will also allow the identification of one or more species- specific molecular markers for identification of S.. parksii at the rosette and early flowering-bud stage, when it is morpJiologically indistinguishable from .S..,. cernua. _ A critical ques\:ion concerning the long-term viabilty of .S..,. parksii is ~ether there is enough genetic diversity to maintain its evolutionary potential in a changing environment. The current species recovery plan delineates metapopulations in southern Brazos County and central Grimes county as the core of the genetic diversity of the species. However, it is likely that there are important reservoirs of genetic diversity in outlying populations, as is typical in many plant species. We will use DNA-based molecular markers to determine the levels of and distribution of genetic diversity among S. parksii populations in order to establish conservation priorities that maximize the long-term evolutionary potential of the species in a changing biotic and abiotic environment. Further, we will assess the levels of gene flow between populations to evaluate the effects of fragmentation and isolation of populations. Finally, information on the patterns of genetic diversity will facilitate the development of strategies for the transplantation of populations, should this become an important tool for conservation of the species. IV. Grow accessions of S.. parksii from all known populations from seed, initially for experimental comparison and eventually for recovery efforts. Seeds of S.. parksii will be examined under a microscope for viable embryos, nonviable embryos, and polyembryony, which is an indicator of apomixis. This will allow an initial estimate of % viable seed set and the % of seeds that are apomictic. Seeds will be germinated, and seedlings propagated using established orchid culture methods. Mature seedlings will be propagated in the green house. Plants will be observed for blooms, at which time fertilization experiments will be initiated. Cross-fertilization among clonally related individuals (from apomictic embryos) and among individuals from within and between the study populations will be conducted. Fertilized flowers will be observed for the development of capsules. Seeds of mature capsules will be collected and these procedures will be repeated in order to observe the phenotype and health of the progeny. V. Re-asses the 1984 species recovery plan from an updated and expanded ecological and genetic perspective. The proposed research will result in an expanded and refined definition of habitat requirements. The determination of phylogenetic relationships, breeding system, population- genetic structure, and genetic diversity of .S.. parksii will allow an estimate of its overall evolutionary potential. The results will be presented at scientific meetings, published in peer reviewed journals, and placed on web pages to insure widespread dissemination of the information. The combined elements of our proposed research project will facilitate the identification of target populations for conservation, determine if habitat fragmentation is a problem, and provide information and materials critical to the reintroduction of .S.. parksii. if that is deemed necessary to insure its long-term survival. LITERATURE CITED Catting, P.M.; Mcintosh, K.L.. 1979. Rediscovery of Spiranthes parksii Correll in Brazos County, Texas. Sida 8 (2): 188-193. McClaran, M.P.; Sundt, P.C. 1992. Population dynamics of the rare orchid, Spiranthes delitescens. Southwest Nat. 37 (3): 299-303. Sipes, S.D .; Tepedino, V.J. 1995. Reproductive biology of the rare orchid, Spiranthes diluvialis: breeding system, pollination, and implications for conservation. Conserv. Biol. (4): 929-938. Smith, E.L. 1982. Texas orchid listed as endangered Spiranthes parksii. Endangered Species Tech Bull. Washington, D.C. : Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered _~pecies Progr. 7 (5) p. 1, 4. q -i PARTICIPANTS Dr. James R. Manhart, Associate Professor, Biology Department, Texas A&M University. My expertise and training are in the areas of Plant Taxonomy and Plant Molecular Systematics. I have been at Texas A&M University since 1988 and am familiar with the local species of Spiranthes. My efforts will focus on field work and phylogenetic analyses of .S.. parksii and related species. Dr. Alan E. Pepper, Assistant Professor, Biology Department, Texas A&M University. My expertise and training are in the areas of plant molecular biology and genetics, plant development, and interactions with the environment. I have been at Texas A&M University since 1995, and have experience in the study of rare and endemic plant species. My efforts will focus on the development and application of DNA-based molecular markers (including microsatellites) for studying the reproductive, population, and evolutionary biology of .S.. parksii. Dr. Justin Williams, Assistant Professor, Biology Department, Sam Houston State University. My expertise and training are in the areas of Plant Taxonomy and Global Information Systems. I have been at working in Texas on various environmental issues since 1996 and am familiar with the technologies, agencies and participants associated with species management in this state. My efforts will focus on GIS and managing the propagation of Spiranthes. C.J. Maciejeski, Undergraduate Student, Biology Department, Sam Houston State University. My expertise is in the area of Orchid propagation. I have spoken at the Houston Orchid Society, Galveston Orchid Society, Shreveport Orchid Society, Pleurothallid Alliance meetings, and Blossom Time in Houston. Since 1999 I have published numerous articles on orchid propagation in both local and national publications, including Houston Happenings (the newsletter of the Houston Orchid Society), the Newsletter of the North Jersey Orchid Society, Pleurothallid News and Views (Newsletter of the Pleurothallid Alliance), and Orchids, the Magazine of the American Orchid Society. An outstanding doctoral student will be selected from the application pools of the T AMU Biology Department (Biology, Botany), and the interdisciplinary graduate programs in Molecular and Environmental Plant Sciences and Genetics. ·1