Proposed Rule2026-03831
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of Geocarpon Minimum From the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
February 26, 2026
Issuing agencies
Interior DepartmentFish and Wildlife Service
Abstract
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to remove Geocarpon minimum from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants. Our review indicates that the threats to Geocarpon minimum have been eliminated or reduced to the point that the species no longer meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Accordingly, we propose to delist Geocarpon minimum. This proposed rule completes the 5-year status review for the species. If we finalize this rule as proposed, the prohibitions and conservation measures provided by the Act, particularly through sections 4 and 7, would no longer apply to Geocarpon minimum.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 38 (Thursday, February 26, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 38 (Thursday, February 26, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9532-9547]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-03831]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS-R4-ES-2024-0043; FXES1113090FEDR-256-FF09E22000]
RIN 1018-BG47
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of
Geocarpon Minimum From the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
remove Geocarpon minimum from the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Plants. Our review indicates that the threats to Geocarpon
minimum have been eliminated or reduced to the point that the species
no longer meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act).
Accordingly, we propose to delist Geocarpon minimum. This proposed rule
completes the 5-year status review for the species. If we finalize this
rule as proposed, the prohibitions and conservation measures provided
by the Act, particularly through sections 4 and 7, would no longer
apply to Geocarpon minimum.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
April 27, 2026. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59
p.m. eastern time on the closing date. We must receive requests for a
public hearing, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT by April 13, 2026.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. In the Search box, enter FWS-R4-ES-2024-0043,
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the
Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on the left
side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the Proposed
Rule box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking
on ``Comment.''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2024-0043, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
Availability of supporting materials: This proposed rule and
supporting documents, including the Recovery Plan, the draft post-
delisting monitoring plan, and the species status assessment (SSA)
report are available at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No.
FWS-R4-ES-2024-0043 and on the Service's website at <a href="https://www.fws.gov/office/arkansas-ecological-services">https://www.fws.gov/office/arkansas-ecological-services</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jason Hight, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Arkansas Ecological Services Field Office;
501-513-4470; <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#761c17051918291e1f111e023610010558111900"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3d575c4e52536255545a55497d5b4a4e135a524b">[email protected]</span></a>. Individuals in the United States who
are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may
dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay
services. Individuals outside the United States should use the relay
services offered within their country to make international calls to
the point-of-contact in the United States. Please see Docket No. FWS-
R4-ES-2024-0043 on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> for a document that
summarizes this proposed rule.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, a species warrants
delisting if it no longer meets the definition of an endangered species
(in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range) or a threatened species (likely to become an endangered species
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range). Geocarpon minimum is listed as threatened, and we are
proposing to delist it. We have determined Geocarpon minimum does not
meet the Act's definition of an endangered or threatened species.
Delisting a species can be completed only by issuing a rule through the
Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking process (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.).
What this document does. This rule proposes to remove Geocarpon
minimum from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants based
on its recovery; if we finalize this rule as proposed, the prohibitions
and conservation measures provided by the Act, particularly through
sections 4 and 7, would no longer apply to Geocarpon minimum.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a
species is an endangered species or a threatened species because of any
of five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence. The determination to delist a
species must be based on an analysis of the same factors.
Under the Act, we must review the status of all listed species at
least once every five years. We must delist a species if we determine,
on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available, that
the species is neither a threatened species nor an endangered species.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(e) identify four reasons why we might
determine a species shall be
[[Page 9533]]
delisted: (1) The species is extinct; (2) the species has recovered to
the point at which it no longer meets the definition of an endangered
species or a threatened species; (3) new information that has become
available since the original listing decision shows the listed entity
does not meet the definition of an endangered species or a threatened
species; or (4) new information that has become available since the
original listing decision shows the listed entity does not meet the
definition of a species. Here, we have determined that Geocarpon
minimum has recovered to the point at which it no longer meets the
definition of an endangered species or a threatened species; therefore,
we are proposing to delist it.
Information Requested
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from other concerned governmental agencies,
Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any
other interested parties concerning this proposed rule.
We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) Reasons we should or should not remove Geocarpon minimum from
the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants;
(2) Relevant data concerning any threats (or lack thereof) to
Geocarpon minimum, particularly any data on the possible effects of
climate change as it relates to habitat, as well as the extent of State
protection and management that would be provided to this plant as a
delisted species;
(3) Current or planned activities within the geographic range of
Geocarpon minimum that may have either a negative or positive impact on
the species, including, but not limited to, planned management,
research regarding the role of habitat disturbance, or research
regarding seed bank longevity and viability;
(4) New information concerning the historical and current status,
range, distribution, management, and population size of Geocarpon
minimum, including information on the populations recently discovered
since the species status assessment (SSA) report was completed, and
information on location of any additional populations of this species;
and
(5) Considerations for post-delisting monitoring, including
monitoring protocols and length of time monitoring is needed, as well
as triggers for reevaluation.
Please include any supplemental information with your submission
(such as scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us
to verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or
opposition to, the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, do not provide substantial
information necessary to support a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of
the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an
endangered species or a threatened species must be made solely on the
basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
If you submit information via <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the
top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We
will post all hardcopy submissions on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
Our final determination may differ from this proposal because we
will consider all comments we receive during the comment period as well
as any information that may become available after this proposal. For
example, based on the new information we receive (and if relevant, any
comments on that new information), we may conclude that the species
should remain listed as threatened, or we may conclude that the species
should be reclassified from threatened to endangered. We will clearly
explain our rationale and the basis for our final decision, including
why we made changes, if any, that differ from this proposal.
Public Hearing
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified
in DATES. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested, and announce the date, time, and place of the
hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the
Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the
hearing. We may hold the public hearing in person or virtually via
webinar. We will announce any public hearing on our website, in
addition to the Federal Register. The use of these virtual public
hearings is consistent with our regulation at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3).
Previous Federal Actions
On June 16, 1987, we listed Geocarpon minimum (no common name) as
threatened due to habitat destruction or modification (from pasturing,
off-road vehicle use, forestry practices, and succession) and its
limited distribution (52 FR 22930). A recovery plan for the species was
released on July 26, 1993. We completed 5-year reviews of the species
on November 6, 1991; July 1, 2009; and July 20, 2016. None of these 5-
year reviews recommended a change in status for the species.
On July 14, 2021, we published a notice (86 FR 37178) announcing
that we were conducting 5-year status reviews of 37 endangered and
threatened species, including Geocarpon minimum, and requested
information on the species' status. This proposed rule constitutes
completion of that 5-year status review for Geocarpon minimum.
Peer Review
A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for
Geocarpon minimum. The SSA team was composed of Service biologists, in
consultation with other species experts. The SSA report represents a
compilation of the best scientific and commercial data available
concerning the status of the species, including the impacts of past,
present, and future factors (both negative and beneficial) affecting
the species.
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22,
2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review of
listing and recovery actions under the Act (<a href="https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peer-review-policy-directors-memo-2016-08-22.pdf">https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peer-review-policy-directors-memo-2016-08-22.pdf</a>), we solicited independent scientific review of the information
contained in the Geocarpon minimum SSA report. The Service sent the SSA
[[Page 9534]]
report to seven independent peer reviewers and received three
responses. The peer reviews can be found at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>
at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2024-0043. In preparing this proposed rule, we
incorporated the results of these reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA
report, which is the foundation for this proposed rule.
Summary of Peer Reviewer Comments
As discussed above in Peer Review, we received comments from three
peer reviewers on the draft SSA report. We reviewed all comments from
the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new information regarding
the information contained in the SSA report. The peer reviewers
generally concurred with our methods and conclusions and provided
additional information, clarifications, and editorial suggestions. One
reviewer suggested that we model extreme climate changes rather than
rely on models focused on mean predicted changes. We acknowledged the
potential effects of extreme changes but used modeling focused on mean
values since expert input showed no confident predictions of how
Geocarpon minimum may respond to changes in temperature and
precipitation. This reviewer also questioned the use of potential
abundance as a current condition metric since monitoring across the
species' range is inconsistent. We acknowledged the potential issues
with this metric in the SSA report but concluded that using potential
abundance is the best information available to compare the condition of
populations throughout the species' range. Otherwise, no substantive
changes to our analysis and conclusions within the SSA report were
deemed necessary, and peer reviewer comments are addressed in the SSA
report (Service 2021, entire).
Background
A thorough review of the biological information on Geocarpon
minimum, including taxonomy, life history, ecology, and conservation
activities, as well as threats facing the species or its habitat is
presented in our SSA report (Service 2021, entire), which is available
at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> in Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2024-0043. The
SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive biological status
review for Geocarpon minimum but does not represent any decision by the
Service regarding the status of Geocarpon minimum under the Act. It
does, however, serve as one of the bases for this proposed rule and our
regulatory decision, which involves the further application of
standards in the Act and its implementing regulations and policies. In
this proposed rule, we present only a summary of the key results and
conclusions from the SSA report; the full report is available at
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, as referenced above.
Geocarpon minimum is a small winter annual plant in the
Caryophyllaceae family and is restricted to sandstone glade and saline
prairie or barren habitats. At the time of listing in 1987, the species
occurred in 17 populations across two states (Missouri and Arkansas).
It is currently known to occur in 46 extant populations in 4
representation units (RUs) across 5 ecoregions (Ozark Highlands,
Central Irregular Plains, Arkansas Valley, South Central Plains, and
Cross Timbers) in Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas.
Three of the four RUs correspond with their respective ecoregion
(Arkansas Valley, South Central Plains, and Cross Timbers) and the
fourth RU combines the two ecoregions (Ozark Highlands/Central
Irregular Plains). These two ecoregions are considered one RU because a
majority of the populations occur within the Ozark Highlands ecoregion
and the remaining populations occurring in the Central Irregular Plains
are in the transitional zone between ecoregions.
The species occupies discrete microhabitats consisting of highly
mineralized soils that are not suitable for most other plants. The
species requires these harsh conditions to avoid competition from other
plants. Studied Geocarpon minimum populations contain either a single
or a few unique homozygous lineages, each commonly occurring at high
frequencies, indicating that it is an obligate self-pollinator (Edwards
et al. 2019, p. 1444). Seed dispersal appears highly localized and
likely occurs by gravity and via water sheet flow or wind (Service
1993, p. 2; NatureServe 2021, unpaginated). The seeds of Geocarpon
minimum remain in the seed bank for an indeterminate period with
evidence suggesting the likelihood of remaining viable for several
years, e.g., potentially for at least 5-10 years (Service 2021, p. 6).
Further information on the basic biology and ecology of Geocarpon
minimum is summarized in the SSA report (Service 2021, entire).
Recovery Criteria
Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement
recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered and
threatened species unless we determine that such a plan will not
promote the conservation of the species. Under section 4(f)(1)(B)(ii),
recovery plans must, to the maximum extent practicable, include
objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would result in a
determination, in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the
Act, that the species be removed from the Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
Recovery plans provide a roadmap for us and our partners on methods
of enhancing conservation and minimizing threats to listed species, as
well as measurable criteria against which to evaluate progress towards
recovery and assess the species' likely future condition. However, they
are not regulatory documents and do not substitute for the
determinations and promulgation of regulations required under section
4(a)(1) of the Act. A decision to revise the status of a species or to
delist a species is ultimately based on an analysis of the best
scientific and commercial data available to determine whether a species
is no longer an endangered species or a threatened species, regardless
of whether that information differs from the recovery plan.
There are many paths to accomplishing recovery of a species, and
recovery may be achieved without all of the criteria in a recovery plan
being fully met. For example, one or more criteria may be exceeded
while other criteria may not yet be accomplished. In that instance, we
may determine that the threats are minimized sufficiently and that the
species is robust enough that it no longer meets the definition of an
endangered species or a threatened species. In other cases, we may
discover new recovery opportunities after having finalized the recovery
plan. Parties seeking to conserve the species may use these
opportunities instead of methods identified in the recovery plan.
Likewise, we may learn new information about the species after we
finalize the recovery plan. The new information may change the extent
to which existing criteria are appropriate for identifying recovery of
the species. The recovery of a species is a dynamic process requiring
adaptive management that may or may not follow all of the guidance
provided in a recovery plan.
A recovery plan for Geocarpon minimum was issued in 1993 (Service
1993, entire) with the objective to delist the species. The plan
provides three criteria to accomplish this objective. The discussion
below provides an assessment of these three delisting criteria as they
relate to evaluating the status of the species.
[[Page 9535]]
Delisting Criterion 1: A total of 15 viable populations,
representing the diversity of habitats and geographic range of the
species, are protected as necessary to ensure continued existence.
This criterion has been met. Currently, 28 of the 46 populations
(61 percent) occur on lands that are protected or are wholly or
partially publicly owned, and thus more likely to be protected for the
species. Of these 28 sites, 15 rank as having high resiliency, 7 as
having moderate resiliency, 2 as having low resiliency, and 5 recently
discovered populations have unknown resiliency. These 15 highly
resilient populations represent 33 percent of known populations and are
spread throughout 3 of the 4 representation units (Service 2021, pp.
20, 34).
Delisting Criterion 2: Populations include the wide spectrum of
current genetic variation found in the species.
Recent studies indicate individual populations of Geocarpon minimum
are genetically unique with little interaction due to isolation, self-
pollination, and low seed vagility (Edwards et al. 2019, entire). Our
future modeling (see Future Condition, below) predicts all populations
(and, thus, their associated full spectrum of genetic diversity) will
persist in similar condition into the foreseeable future. Additionally,
there has been a large increase in the number of known populations
since listing thus providing an increase in the known genetic
variation. We now have 46 known populations, with over half located on
protected sites that provide a wide spectrum of genetic variation
across the species' range. Therefore, the intent of this criterion has
been met.
Delisting Criterion 3: Population viability is confirmed through
periodic monitoring for at least a 15-year period.
The intent of this criterion has been met. Most populations,
including 11 of the 15 highly resilient populations, have been
periodically monitored for at least a 15-year period. Some populations
have documented presence for a period of more than 60 years. Because of
the discovery of newer populations, some sites have only been visited
once or twice. The mean time between the first observation and last
observation for the 15 protected highly resilient populations is 28
years (range = 2-63). When excluding the newly discovered populations,
the mean period of monitoring for these populations is 36 years (range
= 19-63). Although there is some uncertainty regarding population
fluctuations that may have occurred in the interim between the first
and last monitoring time, there has been no change in the populations'
protection or resiliency over the average time frame of 36 years. These
monitoring results provide confidence that the highly resilient
condition of these populations is stable. The remaining recently
discovered populations may also exhibit long-term viability, given that
some showed high resiliency scores during recent observations.
Regulatory and Analytical Framework
Regulatory Framework
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth
the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered
species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for
threatened species, and designating critical habitat for endangered and
threatened species.
The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a species that is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we
determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened
species because of any of the following factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative
effects or may have positive effects. The determination to delist a
species must be based on an analysis of the same five factors.
We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat''
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action
or condition or the action or condition itself.
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all
identified threats by considering the species' expected response and
the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and conditions
that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, population, and
species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the
species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on
the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the
threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have
positive effects on the species--such as any existing regulatory
mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether
the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' or a
``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative analysis
and describing the expected effect on the species.
The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis which is
further described in the 2009 Memorandum Opinion on the foreseeable
future from the Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor (M-
37021, January 16, 2009; ``M- Opinion,'' available online at <a href="https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/uploads/M-37021.pdf">https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/uploads/M-37021.pdf</a>).
The foreseeable future extends as far into the future as the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service can make
reasonably reliable predictions about the threats to the species and
the species' responses to those threats. We need not identify the
foreseeable future in terms of a specific period of time. We will
describe the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis, using the best
scientific and commercial data available and taking into account
considerations such as the species' life-history characteristics,
threat-projection timeframes, and environmental variability. In other
words, the foreseeable future is the period of time over which we can
make reasonably reliable predictions. ``Reliable'' does not mean
``certain''; it means sufficient to
[[Page 9536]]
provide a reasonable degree of confidence in the prediction, in light
of the conservation purposes of the Act.
Analytical Framework
The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive
biological review of the best scientific and commercial data available
regarding the status of the species, including an assessment of the
potential threats to the species. The SSA report does not represent our
decision on whether the species should be proposed for delisting.
However, it does provide the scientific basis that informs our
regulatory decisions, which involve the further application of
standards within the Act and its implementing regulations and policies.
To assess Geocarpon minimum viability, we used the three
conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and
representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly,
resiliency is the ability of the species to withstand environmental and
demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, warm or cold
years); redundancy is the ability of the species to withstand
catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution events);
and representation is the ability of the species to adapt to both near-
term and long-term changes in its physical and biological environment
(for example, climate conditions, pathogen). In general, species
viability will increase with increases in resiliency, redundancy, and
representation (Smith et al. 2018, p. 306). Using these principles, we
identified the species' ecological requirements for survival and
reproduction at the individual, population, and species levels, and
described the beneficial and risk factors influencing the species'
viability.
The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages.
During the first stage, we evaluated individual species' life-history
needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical and
current condition of the species' demographics and habitat
characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at
its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making
predictions about the species' future condition, including responses to
positive and negative environmental and anthropogenic influences.
Throughout all of these stages, we used the best scientific and
commercial data available to characterize viability as the ability of a
species to sustain populations in the wild over time which we then used
to inform our regulatory decision.
The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from
the SSA report; the full SSA report can be found at Docket No. FWS-R4-
ES-2024-0043 on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
Summary of Biological Status and Threats
In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the
species and its resources, and the threats that influence the species'
current and future condition, in order to assess the species' overall
viability and the risks to that viability. In addition, the SSA Report
(Service 2021, entire) documents our comprehensive biological status
review for the species, including an assessment of the potential
threats to the species.
The following is a summary of this status review and the best
scientific and commercial data available gathered since that time that
has informed this decision.
Species Needs
Geocarpon minimum is an annual, small succulent-like forb that
emerges as early as November in the form of small winter rosettes, with
flowering stems emerging from March to mid-April (Morgan 1986, p. 5).
The plant has no obvious adaptations such as nectaries or a showy calyx
or corolla that might attract pollinators (Edwards et al. 2019, pp.
1438-1439). Further, the species does not have observed pollinators and
relatively few unique homozygous lineages, both indicating that it is
an obligate self-pollinator (Tucker 1983, p. 18; Edwards et al. 2019,
p. 1444). Geocarpon minimum seed dispersal appears highly localized and
likely occurs by gravity and via water sheet flow or wind (Service
1993, p. 2; NatureServe 2021, unpaginated). Genetic analysis backs up
the low vagility of this species, although there are rare instances
where closely related genotypes are present in adjacent or
geographically distant populations (Edwards et al. 2019, p. 1444). This
indicates that there may be other mechanisms that lead to more
extensive dispersal of seeds. Possible means include the intentional or
inadvertent movement by of soil by humans or animals and movement of
seeds by extreme weather events including major flooding or extreme
winds (Edwards et al. 2019, p. 1444; NatureServe 2021, p. 5). The seeds
of Geocarpon minimum are present in the seed bank for an indeterminant
period, possibly for many years (Service 2021, p. 6).
The flowering and fruiting period when plants are most visible
ranges from January to early June, with March and April as the most
common survey dates reported throughout the range (Palmer and
Steyermark 1950, p. 269; Tucker 1983, p. 5; Bridges 1986, p. 28-29;
Baker and Soteropoulos 2021, p. 3). The entire flowering period
typically lasts about a month. Local weather patterns impact the
success of germination, flowering, and seed production (Bridges 1986,
pp. 28-29; Morgan 1986, p. 5; Shepherd 1987, p. 17; Baker and
Soteropoulos 2021, p. 3). Some Geocarpon minimum sites may become
unsuitable due to water ponding associated with a very wet winter and
spring (Baker and Soteropoulos 2021, p. 38). Growth and flowering in
the spring is thought to be dictated primarily by temperature (Morgan
1986, p. 5). After flowering, both temperature and soil moisture play a
role in the final growth of the plant and ultimately the number of
viable seeds. Additionally, late frosts may play a role in the local
distribution of annual species that flower in early spring (Tucker
1983, p. 11). It has further been hypothesized that the reduced
abundance of Geocarpon minimum and suitable microhabitat observed over
the last two decades in some southern Arkansas populations (South
Central Plains RU) may also be the result of abnormally wet summer and
fall seasons that promote the growth of competing vegetation (Baker
2021b, pers. comm.).
Geocarpon minimum populations occur within five ecoregions in the
south central United States (Ozark Highlands, Central Irregular Plains,
Arkansas Valley, South Central Plains, and Cross Timbers) (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 2013, entire). Geocarpon
minimum generally occurs in two distinct habitat types rangewide:
sandstone glades (Ozark Highlands, Central Irregular Plains, and Cross
Timbers) or saline barrens (Arkansas Valley and South Central Plains).
In both habitat types, the species occurs exclusively in open habitats,
thriving in areas with unobstructed sunlight and lack of competition.
Factors Influencing the Species
The main threats to Geocarpon minimum at the time of listing were
habitat destruction or modification (from pasturing, off-road vehicle
use, forestry practices, and succession), as well as the impacts from
the species' limited distribution. The species' distribution has
increased from 17 known populations in 2 states at the time of listing
to 46 currently known populations in 5 states, with new populations
continuing to be found. Thus, we no longer consider the species'
distribution limited, and thus we do not consider the distribution as a
major
[[Page 9537]]
stressor. In this rule, we discuss the major threats affecting the
species now and into the future, which include habitat disturbance,
climate change, vegetation encroachment, and development. These
threats, their sources, and their effects to Geocarpon minimum are
summarized below.
Habitat Disturbance
Habitat disturbance can be both a threat and benefit to the species
with timing and intensity of the disturbance dictating whether there
are negative or positive impacts (see ``Habitat Management'' below).
Geocarpon minimum is likely dependent upon some level of disturbance to
maintain suitable microhabitat conditions. The type, frequency, and
intensity of required disturbance is unclear, although numerous authors
report the role of disturbance in the long-term viability of
populations (Rettig 1983, p. 213; Tucker 1983, p. 19; Shephard et al.
1990, p. 6; Logan 1998, p. 1; Smith and Ely 2006, p. 1156; Baker and
Soteropoulos 2021, p. 6; Briggler 2021a, pers. comm.).
Light surface disturbance during the summer, fall, or early winter
may be beneficial for maintaining suitable microhabitat in the saline
prairies of south Arkansas and sandstone glades of Missouri (Baker
2021a, pers. comm.; Briggler 2021a, pers. comm.). This disturbance may
have historically occurred due to periodic use as salt licks by large
mammals such as deer, elk, or bison (Witsell 2004, p. 5), although off-
road vehicle use may replicate this disturbance. Conversely, surface
disturbance by off-road vehicle use during the wet periods of winter
and spring may negatively affect Geocarpon minimum due to rutting and
associated standing water and establishment of perennial vegetation
(Bridges 1986, p. 30; Morgan 1986, pp. 6-7). However, soil disturbance
by off-road vehicles along with removal of woody vegetation were noted
in the creation of additional suitable habitat at one site in Missouri
(Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) 2021, entire).
Although robust germination events have been observed following
rooting by feral hogs (Keith 2020, p. 4), the long-term effects may be
negative and similar to those of wet season off-road traffic (Baker
2021a, pers. comm.). The effects of cattle grazing have been described
variously as potentially beneficial due to heavy grazing of competing
grasses or trampling of competitive mosses (Witsell 2003, p. 3; Smith
and Ely 2006, p. 1147; MDC 2021, entire) as well as detrimental due to
trampling and churning of shallow sands and deposition of organic
matter leading to invasion by more competitive species (Morgan 1986,
pp. 6-7; MDC 2021, entire).
Similarly, habitat disturbance through fire may be detrimental or
beneficial for the species. Fire is effective at reducing competition
from lichens, mosses, and woody or other perennial vascular plants, but
should be conducted outside the late winter/early-spring vegetative
period to avoid direct losses of Geocarpon minimum (Baker 2021a, pers.
comm.; Briggler 2021b, pers. comm.). Surface disturbance and fire
(either controlled or natural) are likely essential to the long-term
maintenance of appropriate habitat for Geocarpon minimum, but also can
be threats to the species with the timing and intensity of disturbances
dictating the effects to populations.
As mentioned above, habitat disturbance through feral hog damage is
a possible threat to Geocarpon minimum at some sites with the potential
to extirpate populations (Baker and Soteropoulos 2021, pp. 7, 32;
Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) 2021, entire).
Feral hog damage has only been noted in saline prairie habitats and
habitats adjacent to sandstone outcrops (Keith 2020, p. 4; Baker 2021c,
pers. comm.; LDWF 2021, entire). Observers noted significant hog damage
within unoccupied sandstone glades in the Ozarks of Arkansas (Baker
2021c, pers. comm.). If present in adequate densities, feral hogs could
eventually affect Geocarpon minimum sites within sandstone glades in
Missouri, Texas, and Oklahoma. Intensive rutting during wet periods can
alter the microhydrology and thoroughly mix the soil at a site, making
it less suitable for Geocarpon minimum and more attractive to
competitive species. See ``Habitat Management'' for information on
feral hog removal at Geocarpon minimum sites. It has been noted in
Arkansas and Texas that Geocarpon minimum may respond vigorously in the
first few years following such disturbance, but the habitat soon
becomes unsuitable due to the intrusion of competitive plants (Keith
2020, p. 4; Baker 2021a, pers. comm.).
Climate Change
Associated long-term changes observed as a result of a warming
climate include changes in arctic temperatures and ice coverage,
changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns and
extreme weather, including droughts, heavy precipitation events, heat
waves, and increased tropical cyclone intensity (Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2014, pp. 70-73). Continued change is
likely, but individual models downscaling the rate and magnitude of
change within a specific region are less certain. Species dependent
upon specialized habitats or climatic conditions, limited in
distribution, or occurring at the periphery of their range may be more
susceptible to the effects of climate change.
Predicting the potential effects of climate change upon populations
of Geocarpon minimum is complicated because the species occupies sites
exhibiting a wide range of temperature and precipitation conditions. We
used summary projections for the historical simulation (1971-2000) to
characterize current climatic conditions for the species (Service 2021,
p. 11). Mean winter (December through February) rainfall amounts for
populations range from 14.5 centimeters (cm) (5.7 inches (in)) in the
Cross Timbers ecoregion to 37.3 cm (14.7 in) in the South Central
Plains. Spring (March through May) rainfall amounts range from a mean
of 26.2 cm (10.3 in) in the Cross Timbers to 35.6 cm (14.0 in) in the
South Central Plains. Mean winter temperatures vary from 1.3 degrees
Celsius ([deg]C) (34.3 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F)) in the Ozark
Highlands/Central Irregular Plains to 8.3 [deg]C (46.9 [deg]F) in the
South Central Plains. Mean spring temperatures are lowest in the Ozark
Highlands/Central Irregular Plains at 13.4 [deg]C (56.2 [deg]F) and
highest in the Cross Timbers at 18.4 [deg]C (65.1 [deg]F).
Timing and intensity of winter and spring temperatures and rainfall
are important drivers of annual success for this species (Steyermark
1958, p. 125; Tucker 1983, p. 11; Bridges 1986, pp. 28-29; Morgan 1986,
p. 5; Shepherd 1987, p. 17; Logan 1998, pp. 1-2; Baker and Soteropoulos
2021, p. 3). Abnormally dry or cold winter/spring seasons may reduce
germination and seed production. Conversely, excessive rain may
negatively affect populations within saline prairies due to pooling of
water within the microhabitat (Baker and Soteropoulos 2021, p. 38).
Many of the sites closely associated with mineral slicks are undergoing
slow succession from open slicks with gradations of microhabitats to
more homogenous habitats dominated by mosses, dense annual vegetation,
or perennial grasses (Baker and Soteropoulos 2021, p. 6). This change
may be due to a lack of periodic disturbance. Furthermore, monitoring
in Missouri shows more competition from woody vegetation in sandstone
glades, which may be related
[[Page 9538]]
to heavier summer rainfall (Briggler 2021a, pers. comm.).
The resilience of some Geocarpon minimum populations to short-term
drought is anecdotally supported by climatic data and population
monitoring at the Warren Prairie populations in southern Arkansas.
These populations experienced extreme to exceptional drought conditions
for a 12-month period from September 2010 to August 2011 (National
Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS), 2021, unpaginated). This
drought encompassed the entire life cycle of Geocarpon minimum (late
fall/winter germination through late spring seed drop). Slightly dry to
normal rainfall patterns returned to the region beginning in September
of 2011. Monitoring during spring 2012 revealed the highest number of
plants observed at this site over 10 years of monitoring (2012-2021)
(Baker 2021c, pers. comm.; Baker and Soteropoulos 2021, pp. 25-26).
These data indicate that the species rebounded immediately following a
severe drought year. Estimated populations at Warren Prairie fluctuated
in the following years but never exceeded the numbers observed in 2012.
Although drought during the late fall/winter/spring seasons may
negatively affect Geocarpon minimum success in a given year, seeds
likely remain viable for several years and perhaps longer (Service
2021, p. 6). Additionally, drought monitoring data dating back to 1895
indicate that periods of drought are common throughout the range of
Geocarpon minimum, although the frequency and duration of events varies
(NIDIS 2021, unpaginated). In recent decades, droughts have occurred
less frequently (Service 2021, table 1, p. 14).
Climate predictions generally describe future conditions with more
extremes (for example, increased drought or heavy rainfall events). The
predictive models we used focus on mean values for future temperature
and precipitation but lack detailed or long-term predictions for
extreme events. Predicted changes in temperature and precipitation vary
by RU and season (Service 2021, pp. 58-61). In the future scenario
(2070-2099), maximum winter season changes in precipitation range from
-1.3 cm (-0.5 in) (South Central Plains) to +1.8 cm (+0.7 in) (Ozark
Highlands/Central Irregular Plains) with temperature changes predicted
from +4.2 [deg]C (+7.50 [deg]F) (South Central Plains) to +4.9 [deg]C
(+8.7 [deg]F) (Ozark Highlands/Central Irregular Plains). Spring
changes include less rainfall in the Cross Timbers (1.4 cm (-0.6 in))
and more rainfall in the Ozark Highlands/Central Irregular Plains (+4.0
cm (+1.6 in)), with temperature increases ranging from +4.4 [deg]C
(+8.0 [deg]F) (South Central Plains) to +4.7 [deg]C (+8.5 [deg]F)
(Cross Timbers). Winter and spring are the most important seasons for
Geocarpon minimum germination, growth, and seed production.
Although this plant does not grow in the summer and fall, these
seasons may be important in maintaining suitable microhabitats for this
species. Predicted summer changes include reductions of rainfall and
increases in temperature across all RUs ranging from -2.2 cm (-0.9 in)
(Ozark Highlands/Central Irregular Plains) to -5.1 cm (-2.0 in) (South
Central Plains) and +5.3 [deg]C (+9.6 [deg]F) (Cross Timbers) to +6.3
[deg]C (+11.3 [deg]F) (Arkansas Valley). Fall predictions range from
reductions of rainfall in the Cross Timbers of -0.2 cm (-0.1 in) to
increases of rainfall in the Ozark Highlands/Central Irregular Plains
of +0.4 cm (+0.1 in). For fall, temperatures are predicted to rise and
range from +5.2 [deg]C (+9.4 [deg]F) in the South Central Plains to
+5.6 [deg]C (+10.1 [deg]F) in the Ozark Highlands/Central Irregular
Plains.
While winter and spring moisture and temperature as drivers of
annual Geocarpon minimum success (Steyermark 1958, p. 125; Tucker 1983,
p. 11; Bridges 1986, pp. 28-29; Morgan 1986, p. 5; Shepherd 1987, p.
17; Logan 1998, pp. 1-2; Baker and Soteropoulos 2021, p. 3), the best
available information does not indicate that Geocarpon minimum will
respond negatively to predicted future changes to these variables
throughout the range. The forecasted maximum changes in mean
precipitation mostly remain within the current range for the species.
Although temperatures are predicted to rise in all RUs and seasons, the
potential effects of these increases are uncertain. Service and State
experts provided wide ranging predictions for how the species may
respond to these temperature increases (Service 2021, pp. 14-15). Thus,
our future condition did not quantitatively incorporate direct impacts
of climate change predictions. However, the land use change model that
we chose incorporates projected climate change as one of the variables
(Sohl et al. 2014, entire; Sohl et al. 2018, entire).
Vegetation Encroachment
Vegetation encroachment may threaten the viability of Geocarpon
minimum populations and is directly or indirectly related to habitat
disturbance, climate change, and land use. Mineral slicks to which
Geocarpon minimum is typically closely associated in saline barren
habitats in the South Central Plains of southern Arkansas have
undergone a slow change from open slicks with graduated microhabitats
to more homogenous habitats dominated by mosses, dense annual
vegetation, and even perennial grasses (Baker and Soteropoulos 2021, p.
6). These changes are attributable to both a lack of disturbance and a
recent trend of abnormally mild and wet summers. Geocarpon minimum
appears to compete poorly in areas undergoing this transition, and
vegetation encroachment can lead to localized extirpations (Baker and
Soteropoulos 2021, p. 6). Although other populations in the South
Central Plains are not as well monitored, this likely is an issue
throughout the range given the consistently wet years over the last
decade.
Monitoring at one of the sites in the Arkansas Valley demonstrated
habitually low numbers over the last 10-20 years as contrasted with
larger populations observed in the 1990s (Arkansas Natural Heritage
Commission (ANHC) 2021, entire). This decline is attributed partially
to intensive pasture management (fertilization for grass establishment)
(Witsell 2003, p. 2). After unsuccessful attempts at fostering grazing
land, the landowner subsequently removed cattle from the site. It is
hypothesized that grazing in the 1990s prior to pasture improvement
efforts may have contributed to the large numbers observed by reducing
competition from other plants, maintaining a suitable microhabitat, or
releasing the seed bank (Baker and Soteropoulos 2021, pp. 7-8).
Data from Missouri indicate that some sites have been negatively
affected by competition from woody plants, such as red cedar (Juniperus
virginiana), mosses, lichens, and grasses (Briggler 2021b, pers. comm.;
MDC 2021, entire). Regular controlled burns outside Geocarpon minimum's
growing season may be the best tool to maintain glade characteristics
and Geocarpon minimum microhabitat at these sites. In the absence of
regular burning, mechanical removal of woody vegetation can result in
dramatic increases in the number of stems at a site (Briggler 2021b,
pers. comm.). Both controlled burns and mechanical removal of woody
vegetation occur on public and private conservation lands within
sandstone glade habitats in Missouri and Texas. Invasive Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) has been noted adjacent to some sites
in Missouri, but it has not been documented to be in direct competition
with Geocarpon minimum.
Vegetation encroachment on prairies and glades at Ft. Wolters
within the
[[Page 9539]]
Cross Timbers of Texas was identified as a natural resource management
concern (Texas Military Department (TMD) 2020, p. 26). Both juniper
(Juniperus spp.) and honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa) are
identified as species capable of becoming invasive in the absence of
regular fire or management. The TMD funds active natural resource
management that includes maintenance (controlled burns) and pre-fire
thinning (mechanical removal) of woody stems prior to establishment of
a burning rotation.
Development
We define development as any action that results in the permanent
conversion of Geocarpon minimum habitat to an unsuitable condition.
Examples include urbanization, transportation infrastructure, utility
rights-of-way, and reservoir construction. At least two populations of
the species have been affected by development, including the
construction of a gravel driveway near a population in Missouri and a
highway widening project near a separate population, also in Missouri.
Additionally, a population in Texas lies within the footprint of a
formerly proposed water supply reservoir for the Dallas/Fort Worth
metro area. This area was recently acquired by the National Wildlife
Refuge System.
We are not aware of any extirpations due to development. While the
vast majority of Geocarpon minimum populations are not located near
dense human populations, we assume populations closer to urban areas
are at greater risk for development, especially on private land. These
include populations near Springfield (Missouri), Shreveport
(Louisiana), and Longview (Texas). Recent development near Shreveport
appears to be moving in the direction of Geocarpon minimum populations
(Doffitt 2021, pers. comm.). However, most populations occur in rural
areas and are at minimal threat from development.
Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms
State Protections
In three of the five States where it is found (Missouri, Louisiana,
and Texas), Geocarpon minimum is currently listed as a State endangered
or threatened species. These regulations provide some protections for
the species (Service 2021, pp. 18-19). If the protections of the Act
were to be removed in the future, the State protections for Geocarpon
minimum would likely also be removed in all three States. However, in
Missouri, Geocarpon minimum would remain ranked as an S2 species
(``Imperiled in the [S]tate because of rarity due to very restricted
range, very few populations or occurrences, steep declines, or other
factors making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the state.''; MDC
2025, p. 6). While Arkansas does not have State-specific endangered
species protections, it does have a law (Arkansas Code section 15-45-
301 (2020)) stating that it is the public policy of the State of
Arkansas to promote sound management, conservation, and public
awareness of its diversity of native plants and nongame animals.
Additionally, the State uses its income tax funds for the management of
rare species, acquisition of important lands, public education, or
other conservation actions. The States' endangered species regulations
and other conservation laws may serve to benefit Geocarpon minimum.
Protected Lands
Protected lands include sites that are publicly owned (local,
State, or Federal) and private lands owned by conservation
organizations or otherwise protected (for example, through conservation
easements). Of the 46 known Geocarpon minimum populations, 28 (61
percent) are on lands wholly or partially publicly-owned or otherwise
protected (Service 2021; table 2, p. 20). These lands may provide a
layer of protection from habitat loss or modifications due to
development. Historically, management of Geocarpon minimum populations
has been more likely to occur on public lands. Management actions like
controlled burning, manual vegetation removal, and removal or exclusion
of feral hogs require long-term and potentially expensive commitments,
which often are more difficult for individual private land managers.
However, not all public lands are managed for the exclusive benefit of
Geocarpon minimum. Nevertheless, 21 of 28 Geocarpon minimum sites (75
percent) occurring on wholly or partially publicly-owned lands or
otherwise protected are known to be managed in a way that is compatible
with the species (Service 2021; tables 1 and 2, pp. 14, 20).
Habitat Management
Habitat management for Geocarpon minimum is guided primarily by
attempts to replicate the natural processes discussed above (see
``Habitat Disturbance'' and ``Vegetation Encroachment''). Most
management activities to date have focused on controlled burns or
mechanical vegetation removal in the sandstone glade habitats of
Missouri and Texas and feral hog control at sites in Arkansas and Texas
(TMD 2020, p. M-15; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2020, entire; Phillips
2021, pers. comm.; MDC 2021, entire). Controlled burns of sites in
Arkansas have occurred as well, but the benefits of such actions in the
saline prairie habitats are less certain. Burning during the growing
season has been shown to have negative effects on the species (Baker
2021a, pers. comm.), but properly timed burns in these habitats may be
beneficial.
In addition to vegetation clearing, intentional soil disturbance
may be a beneficial management action. Restoration of former sites may
require soil disturbance along with more frequent vegetation removal
(mowing) to reduce competition from annual and perennial plants while
the soil recovers. Research on the efficacy of soil disturbance is
limited. One experiment conducted in plots that represented heavy,
moderate, and light soil disturbance revealed that only the heavily
disturbed plots remained largely free of overgrowth for 2 years (Baker
and Witsell 2015, p. 7).
Despite limited research on the effects of soil disturbance, there
is anecdotal evidence that it can be beneficial for Geocarpon minimum
if it occurs during the non-growing seasons and is done during dry
periods. Examples include the use of sites by cattle (Witsell 2002, p.
4; Baker and Soteropoulos 2021, p. 8; MDC 2021, entire), surface
scraping from the use of off-road vehicles dragging trees (MDC 2021,
entire), and feral hog rooting (Keith 2020, p. 4). Habitat management
mimicking historical disturbance is an important tool for maintaining
the viability of populations; however, if intensity, timing, and
frequency of disturbances are not managed, they also can have negative
effects on Geocarpon minimum populations.
Given the likely negative effects of feral hogs on Geocarpon
minimum viability in the long term, attempts have been made by some to
control feral hog numbers using trapping or shooting (Hoover 2021,
pers. comm.; LDWF 2021, entire; Phillips 2021, pers. comm.; TMD 2020,
p. F-14). Although some of these efforts are long-term in nature,
others are conducted in response to habitat damage or perceived
increases in the hog population. Feral hogs reproduce prolifically and
will quickly repopulate an area once control measures cease.
Cumulative Effects
We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of
the scientific information documented in
[[Page 9540]]
the SSA report, we have analyzed the cumulative effects of identified
threats and conservation actions on the species. To assess the current
and future condition of the species, we evaluate the effects of all the
relevant factors that may be influencing the species, including threats
and conservation efforts. Because the SSA framework considers not just
the presence of the factors, but to what degree they collectively
influence risk to the entire species, our assessment integrates the
cumulative effects of the factors and replaces a standalone cumulative
effects analysis.
Current Condition
Resiliency
For Geocarpon minimum to maintain viability, its populations or
some proportion thereof must be resilient. Resiliency is assessed at
the level of populations and reflects a species' ability to withstand
stochastic events (events arising from random factors). Resilient
populations are better able to withstand disturbances from demographic
stochasticity (random fluctuations in reproductive rates and fecundity)
and environmental stochasticity (such as normal variations in
rainfall). Factors that have the potential to affect Geocarpon minimum
include habitat disturbance, climate change, and vegetation
encroachment. Factors influencing the resiliency of the species'
populations include abundance, habitat quantity, management, and other
elements of Geocarpon minimum ecology that determine whether
populations can withstand normal stochastic variation.
Based on recent genetic evidence and expert opinion, we considered
patches of Geocarpon minimum that were 0.5 kilometers (km) (0.31 miles
(mi)) or more apart as separate populations (Edwards et al. 2019, p.
1446; Baker and Soteropoulos 2021, p. 4; Service 2021, p. 24).
Geocarpon minimum is currently known from 46 populations in Missouri,
Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas. Five of these populations
(one in Missouri and four in Oklahoma) have been discovered since the
SSA report and analyses. Because of their recent discovery, these sites
could not be evaluated for population resiliency, and we have requested
more information on the status of these populations (see Information
Requested, above).
Based on Geocarpon minimum population needs (undeveloped habitat,
management/disturbance) and factors influencing the viability of the
species (Service 2021; figure 2, p. 10), we developed a set of metrics
for assessing population resilience. These include habitat quantity,
abundance, management, and element occurrence (E.O.) rank (State
viability ranking) (Service 2021; table 3, p. 27). Overall, of the 41
extant populations that were assessed for all four metrics, 17 (42
percent) rated as having high resiliency, 14 (34 percent) as moderate
resiliency, and 10 (24 percent) as low resiliency.
To account for potential differences in the data when assessing
population resilience, we weighted each metric using a factor based on
data quality and our confidence that the underlying data are reasonably
tied to Geocarpon minimum condition and the significance of the metric
score to viability (Service 2021, pp. 28-30). The weights were as
follows: the ``Habitat Quantity'' metric had a weighting factor of 0.21
(meaning this metric contributes 21 percent of the overall population
condition score); the ``Abundance'' metric had a weighting factor of
0.17; the ``Management'' metric had a weighting score of 0.29; and the
``E.O. rank'' metric had a weighting factor of 0.33. The four weighted
metric scores were summed for each population, resulting in an overall
population resiliency condition score of low (-1 to -0.333), moderate
(-0.332 to 0.332), or high (0.333 to 1). The metrics and the scoring
process are discussed below.
Habitat Quantity
We assume that populations occupying larger habitats are more
resilient to environmental stochasticity (as well as more resilient to
development pressures in the future). We defined small habitats
(``low'' category) as those occupying under 1 hectare (ha) (2.5 acres
(ac)) and medium sites (``moderate'' category) as ranging from 1 ha
(2.5 ac) to 5 ha (12.4 ac). Large sites (``high'' category) are defined
as occupying more than 5 ha (12.4 ac). These size ranges refer to the
size of the overall sandstone glade or saline prairie habitats rather
than to the specific area occupied by Geocarpon minimum as this is
rarely documented. The values used for habitat size were obtained from
State heritage organizations or from analysis of aerial photography
(ANHC 2021, entire; LDWF 2021, entire; MDC 2021, entire; Texas Parks
and Wildlife Department 2021, entire).
The quantity of habitat of each population varies from well under 1
ha (2.5 ac) to hundreds of hectares. Nineteen of the measured
populations (46 percent) occur within habitats measuring more than 5 ha
resulting in a ``high'' category for habitat quantity. Fourteen
populations (34 percent) had habitats measuring between 1 and 5 ha
(``moderate'' category). The remaining eight populations (20 percent)
were found in habitats measuring less than 1 ha (``low'' category)
(Service 2021, table 5, p. 36). We do not know the habitat quantity at
the five newly discovered sites, and thus do not include them in our
analysis. We assumed that larger habitats are generally more resilient
to threats than smaller habitats.
Abundance
Of the 41 populations with known abundance at the time of our SSA
analyses, 18 (44 percent) were documented to contain more than 1,000
plants at least once in the last 15 years and received a high abundance
rank. Seven sites (17 percent) had documented maximum populations of
500-1,000 in the same time frame, and thus were assigned an abundance
rank of moderate. The remaining 16 populations (39 percent) either had
maximum documented populations of fewer than 500 plants or had not been
monitored in more than 15 years. These populations received low
abundance ranks. Each of the four newly found populations in Oklahoma
were estimated to contain between 50-250 plants, and the newly found
population in Missouri was estimated to have 6,000 plants (Briggler
2022, pers. comm; Buthod 2024, pers. comm.)
Management
An important influence on Geocarpon minimum viability is habitat
management. Actions such as soil disturbance and controlled burning or
mechanical vegetation removal replicate natural processes that
historically maintained suitable habitat by exposing favored soil
layers and excluding vegetative competition. While management likely
contributes to the long-term viability of this species, the specific
intensity and timing of required management is not fully understood.
This lack of understanding and limited resources may limit management
for this species on some public lands. Alternatively, while land
management specifically for Geocarpon minimum may be rarer on private
lands, some populations occur on lands owned by conservation-oriented
private organizations or individuals. These landowners may enroll their
properties in conservation easements or agreements regarding management
and land use or voluntarily manage habitats for Geocarpon minimum
outside the confines of an agreement.
We considered these situations when ranking (high, moderate, or
low) populations on the Management metric (Service 2021; table 3, p.
27).
[[Page 9541]]
Populations received a rank of ``high'' if they occur either on public
lands managed to benefit Geocarpon minimum or on private lands either
owned and managed by a conservation organization or by individuals
enrolled in a conservation easement or agreement. Populations were
ranked ``moderate'' if they occur on publicly owned lands even if not
managed for Geocarpon minimum conservation. Sites on private land that
are voluntarily managed to benefit Geocarpon minimum but not enrolled
in an easement or agreement also received a ``moderate'' rank (see
``Habitat Management'' above for examples of such management). We
ranked populations that occur on public lands where management
priorities result in negative effects to the species or on privately-
owned, unmanaged sites as ``low.''
Twenty-one of 41 populations with known management (51 percent)
received a high metric rank. These populations occur on public lands
with management or private lands with management plans or easements.
Two populations (5 percent) occur on public lands that are not managed
for the species or on private lands with only voluntary management
actions (moderate metric rank). The remaining 18 populations (44
percent) received a low metric rank and occur wholly or mostly on
private lands with no management plan or easement for Geocarpon
minimum.
Element Occurrence (E.O.) Ranks
Geocarpon minimum is not well-studied, and monitoring efforts are
often rudimentary and highly variable in timing and intensity.
Demographic or habitat metrics available for describing the viability
of this species are limited, and we therefore chose to inform our
assessment using State agency E.O. rank. State agencies rank the
viability of rare species using an E.O. rank (Hammerson et al. 2020,
entire). This system uses a letter rank to assess the current viability
of a population and considers population size, occupied area, abiotic
and biotic conditions, and landscape context. Primary ranks for extant
occurrences are A (excellent viability), B (good viability), C (fair
viability), and D (poor viability). There are also intermediate ranks
that combine primary ranks (for example, AB or CD). Other ranks include
E (verified extant but otherwise unranked), H (historical), F (failed
to find), X (extirpated), and U (unrankable due to lack of
information). All previously known populations of Geocarpon minimum
have current State ranks from A to D, except for one extirpated
population and one historical/presumed extirpated population, both in
Missouri. We assigned E.O. ranks based on extant occurrence ranks to
these populations as follows: A-B=High; BC-C=Moderate; and CD-D=Low. We
address the potential correlation between E.O. ranks and our other
resiliency metrics in the SSA report (Service 2021, p. 28). The five
newly discovered populations (one in Missouri and four in Oklahoma) do
not yet have State ranks.
We assume that E.O. rank is among the best indicators of population
condition. Of 41 extant and ranked populations, 21 (51 percent)
received a high metric rank, 11 populations (27 percent) received a
moderate metric rank, and 9 populations (22 percent) received a low
metric rank.
Representation
Representation reflects a species' adaptive capacity to respond to
changing environmental conditions over time and can be characterized by
genetic and ecological diversity within and among populations. Because
Geocarpon minimum is predominantly self-pollinating and each population
represents a unique genetic subset, representation was assessed based
on geographic distribution and separation across the species' range.
Currently known populations are present in the following U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA 2013, entire) Level III
ecoregions: Ozark Highlands (Missouri); Central Irregular Plains
(Missouri); Arkansas Valley (Arkansas); South Central Plains (Arkansas,
Louisiana, and Texas); and Cross Timbers (Oklahoma and Texas). We used
these five ecoregions to create the four RUs in which to evaluate
representation based on expert input (Service 2021, pp. 30-31). We
combined the Ozark Highlands and Central Irregular Plains into one RU
because there are only a few populations within the Central Irregular
Plains, and they occur within the transitional zone between the
ecoregions (Service 2021, figure 6, p. 31).
We describe representation for Geocarpon minimum as the extent and
variability of environmental conditions within the species' range
across the four RUs. Geographic characteristics, soils, and climate
(mean seasonal precipitation and temperature) vary throughout all four
RUs.
To understand representation, we summarized the number and
distribution of Geocarpon minimum populations across the four RUs to
assess potential ecoregional differences. Currently, Geocarpon minimum
has 46 populations distributed across the RUs, with the Ozark
Highlands/Central Irregular Plains RU containing the most populations
largely clustered in seven adjacent counties. The Arkansas Valley RU
contains two populations occurring within adjacent counties. The South
Central Plains RU contains 14 populations spread across eastern Texas,
northern Louisiana, and southern Arkansas. Nine populations occur in
the Cross Timbers RU, with five populations occupying two adjacent
counties in Texas. The remaining four populations are located in one
county in Oklahoma.
Redundancy
Redundancy reflects a species' ability to rebound after a
catastrophic event and is measured by the number and distribution of
resilient populations (high and moderate resiliency populations) both
across the species' range and within the RUs. Species that are widely
distributed across their historical range relative to potential
catastrophic events are considered less susceptible to extinction and
more likely to have higher viability than species confined to a small
portion of their historical range (Redford et al. 2011, p. 40).
Across the species' range, Geocarpon minimum redundancy has likely
been reduced from historical levels due to widespread impacts to
habitat and loss of natural disturbance processes. To understand
redundancy, we summarized the number and distribution of high and
moderate resiliency Geocarpon minimum populations across the RUs
(figure 1, below).
Currently, of the 41 extant populations assessed, there are 31
known high or moderate resiliency populations distributed across the
RUs. Each RU contains at least one moderately resilient population. The
21 populations located in the Ozark Highlands/Central Irregular Plains
RU include 8 high resiliency populations, 5 moderate resiliency
populations, 7 low resiliency populations, and 1 population of unknown
resiliency. Fourteen populations occur within the South Central Plains
RU, including 6 high resiliency and 6 moderate resiliency populations.
The remaining two populations have low resiliency. Within the Cross
Timbers RU, three populations have high resiliency, while one
population has moderate resiliency and one population has low
resiliency. The four newly discovered populations within this RU have
unknown resiliency. Three of four RUs contain a mix of high, moderate,
and low
[[Page 9542]]
resiliency populations dominated by high and moderate resiliency
populations. The Arkansas Valley RU contains one moderate resiliency
population and one low resiliency population.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26FE26.000
[[Page 9543]]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
Future Condition
We consider ``foreseeable future'' as the period of time extending
only so far into the future as we can make reasonably reliable
predictions about threats to the species and the species' responses to
those threats. We consider approximately 76 years (until 2100) to be a
reasonable period of time within which reliable predictions can be made
for Geocarpon minimum. This period of time aligns with the timeframes
for predictions regarding development and growth and a long enough time
frame to see population-level responses from the species.
Methods and Scenarios
We considered key factors that influence Geocarpon minimum in
predicting future conditions and assessing the species' viability. We
primarily considered land use changes, specifically conversion of lands
to development, to assess the future viability of Geocarpon minimum, as
described below and in the SSA report (Service 2021, pp. 39-41).
Although models were available describing expected changes in climate,
direct impacts from changes in climate may be either beneficial or
detrimental to Geocarpon minimum. Interpretation of future conditions
due to climate change was further complicated by the wide variance in
climatic conditions throughout the species' known range. Thus, we were
best able to assess the potential future effect of climate change on
the species indirectly via land cover change, which was incorporated
explicitly into our modeling, as described below. We are unaware of any
models available that would allow us to assess the future extent,
intensity, or timing of soil disturbances by feral hogs, off-road
vehicles, and other activities. The best available information
regarding the direction and magnitude of impacts from these
disturbances indicates that many habitat actions may be either
detrimental or beneficial to the species depending on the timing and
intensity (see ``Habitat Management'' section above). Therefore, we did
not quantitatively incorporate direct impacts of climate change, feral
hogs, off-road vehicle use, or other soil-disturbing activities in
modeling of future conditions. Similarly, we lacked predictive models
or other information to inform potential changes in management or E.O.
rank metric scores for future scenarios.
To forecast the effects of land use change (development) over a
large geography, we used the United States Geological Survey's
FOREcasting SCEnarios for Land Use Change (FORE-SCE) model, which
projects changes for each land use type (Sohl 2018, entire). The FORE-
SCE model generates a range of spatially explicit land use projections
from 1992 through 2100, and incorporates multiple datasets related to
growth, including climate change, urban development, agricultural
development, and other socioeconomic pressures. These factors are
evaluated in relation to climate change scenarios (Nakicenovic et al.
2000, entire; IPCC 2014, p. 57).
We recognize that the scale of projected land use change from the
FORE-SCE model is coarser than our Geocarpon minimum occurrence
records. No model exists at the scale or resolution to reliably predict
changes at the precise location of individual Geocarpon minimum
populations. Nevertheless, we expect the FORE-SCE model to capture
larger-scale landscape changes that will be reflective of more
localized changes that may affect individual populations or clusters of
populations.
Future Scenarios and Resiliency Calculations
The FORE-SCE model incorporates climate change in scenarios that
also consider human population increases and technological and
socioeconomic drivers. The two FORE-SCE scenarios incorporated into our
analysis include the A2 (a higher emissions scenario) and B1 (a more
moderate emissions scenario) (Nakicenovic et al. 2000, entire; Sohl et
al. 2014, entire). The A2 scenario assumes high economic growth and
high population growth globally and includes the highest rate of urban
increase (development). In general, the projections based on the A2
scenario indicate a loss of natural habitats of varying degrees to
development. The B1 scenario assumes both lower emissions and a slower
pace of development.
Within the FORE-SCE model, 17 land cover types similar to the
classes found in the National Land Cover Dataset are evaluated, and
projections are characterized by 250-meter spatial resolution (250 m x
250 m (820 ft x 820 ft) pixel or cell size). Suitable habitat for
Geocarpon minimum has some unique features (see Background, above) and
is not reliably distinguishable using any of the FORE-SCE cover
classes. For this reason, we focused on the changes observed in the
percentage of predicted developed land.
The FORE-SCE model provided annual projections from 2009 to 2100.
To forecast the effects of changes in development on Geocarpon minimum
in the future, FORE-SCE model outputs were used to assign adjustments
to resiliency scores for each population in both future scenarios. We
evaluated the projected changes (loss or gain in development) predicted
by the FORE-SCE model for two scenarios (A2 and B1) for the year 2100,
as compared to a baseline of 2021 (A2) values.
To best capture nearby development that might impact Geocarpon
minimum populations while also avoiding overestimating the impact of
development farther away, we chose to look at an area that was 9 square
miles (mi\2\) (23.3 square kilometers (km\2\)) and centered on each
Geocarpon minimum population. We calculated the percent change in
development and then applied the change to the ``habitat quantity'' and
``abundance'' condition metrics for each future scenario. We reduced
habitat quantity and abundance for a population by the same proportion
of land that was developed in its corresponding analysis unit between
current (2021) and future (2100) conditions (Service 2021, p. 41).
Using the resulting numbers, we re-scored each population based on the
same metric thresholds used to assess current condition. We assumed
that any populations occurring on publicly owned lands would not be
affected by development.
Future Population Resilience
We determined the future resiliency of Geocarpon minimum
populations using the methods and scenarios described above. Future
predictions were estimated for two land use change scenarios (A2 and
B1) for the year 2100. Some individual sites had decreases in their
resiliency score; however, none of the final condition categories
(high, moderate, or low) changed from current conditions under either
future scenario. No populations were projected to become extirpated.
Future Species Representation
To predict species representation under plausible future scenarios,
we characterized the number and distribution of Geocarpon minimum
populations in the 4 RUs for the 41 populations known at the time of
analysis under the two future scenarios. The analyzed Geocarpon minimum
populations occur in the Ozark Highlands/Central Irregular Plains (20),
Arkansas Valley (2), South Central Plains (14), and Cross Timbers (5).
Future representation is predicted to remain the same for Geocarpon
minimum across all RUs in each scenario. Extant populations remain in
all RUs across all future scenarios, and
[[Page 9544]]
we did not predict the extirpation of any populations.
The Arkansas Valley is most at risk for losing species
representation as it only has two populations with one ranked as having
moderate resiliency and the other ranked as low. The remaining RUs have
more populations and higher percentages of moderate and high resiliency
populations (Ozark Highlands/Central Irregular Plains, 65 percent of 20
populations remain in moderate to high resiliency; South Central
Plains, 86 percent of 14; and Cross Timbers, 100 percent of 5). We
estimate the future level of representation to be similar to current
conditions under both scenarios.
Future Species Redundancy
Redundancy describes the ability of a species to withstand
catastrophic events. Redundancy for Geocarpon minimum is characterized
by having multiple high and moderate resiliency populations distributed
across the species' range. Redundancy is predicted to remain the same
as that described for current conditions, with 31 of the 41 evaluated
populations continuing to be categorized as having high or moderate
resiliency. These populations are distributed across the four RUs, with
each RU containing at least one moderately resilient population. The
five additional populations that have been recently discovered were not
modeled into the future, but increase the distribution of the species
and may continue to do so into the future. Additionally, there are no
extirpations projected into the future throughout the range of the
species, meaning no forecasted reductions in the species' redundancy.
Summary of Future Conditions and Viability
We predicted the future resiliency of Geocarpon minimum populations
for the year 2100 using two scenarios (A2 and B1) that account for
FORE-SCE modeled changes in land use, specifically the percentage of
land in a developed state. Although some populations are predicted to
be affected by increased rates of development, none of the changes were
large enough to affect the species' final population condition scores.
Because of this lack of change, the population resiliency and species
representation and redundancy for both future scenarios are similar to
that of the current conditions.
Determination of Geocarpon Minimum Status
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a
threatened species. The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a
species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion
of its range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we
determine whether a species meets the definition of an endangered
species or a threatened species because of any of the following
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C)
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence.
Status Throughout All of Its Range
After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the
cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1)
factors, we find that the current viability of Geocarpon minimum is
higher now than at the time of listing due to the discovery of
additional areas occupied by the species, reduction of threats, and
implementation of management actions by partnering agencies throughout
the species' range.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to Geocarpon minimum. The number of known populations has increased
from 17 at the time of listing to 46 currently. New populations
continue to be found, and the known species' range has expanded from 10
counties in Missouri and Arkansas to 22 counties and parishes in
Missouri, Arkansas, Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana. Of the 41
populations for which resiliency could be estimated, 76 percent had
moderate to high resiliency under current conditions. These resilient
populations were distributed across the four RUs (i.e., at least one
moderately resilient population per ecoregion). This distribution
represents a diverse array of habitat conditions, which may enable the
species to more readily adapt to environmental changes. Moreover, the
greater number of resilient populations known today provides redundancy
across the species' range, such that Geocarpon minimum populations are
very unlikely to be negatively affected by catastrophic events or other
sources of environmental stochasticity simultaneously. Considering
resiliency, representation, and redundancy together, the species is not
currently in danger of extinction.
The main threat at many sites is habitat destruction or
modification and competition with other species (Factor A). To examine
the impact of development and land use change more closely, we analyzed
two different future scenarios until the year 2100. Under the two
scenarios evaluated, the number of the 41 known populations at the time
of analysis remaining in high or moderate resiliency categories is the
same as under current conditions (31; 76 percent). The species is
expected to continue to occur across its range, with representation and
redundancy remaining at their current levels. Of the 41 analyzed
populations, 21 (51 percent) occur either on public lands with
management or on private lands with management plans or easements,
which reduces the likelihood of development impacting these populations
and increases the likelihood of suitable management that decreases the
impacts from threats. Because estimates of population resiliency,
redundancy, and representation did not change under a plausible range
of future land use change scenarios, our analysis suggests that
Geocarpon minimum is not likely to be in danger of extinction in the
foreseeable future due to this key threat.
During our analysis, we found that the distribution of Geocarpon
minimum is not as limited as was understood at the time of listing
(Factor E). We do not expect this condition to change substantially in
the foreseeable future and, therefore, no longer consider this
condition a threat to the species. Since listing, we have become aware
of the potential for the effects of climate change (Factor E) to affect
all biota, including Geocarpon minimum. The broadened range and
increased number of populations since listing in 1987 indicate that the
species benefits from sufficient redundancy, representation, and
resiliency to withstand perturbations from climate change and suggest
that the effects of ongoing climate change are not a threat to the
species within the foreseeable future.
Thus, after assessing the best scientific and commercial data
available, we conclude that Geocarpon minimum is not in danger of
extinction now or likely to become so within the foreseeable future
throughout all of its range.
[[Page 9545]]
Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range. Having determined that Geocarpon minimum is not in danger
of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future
throughout all of its range, we now consider whether it may be in
danger of extinction (i.e., endangered) or likely to become so within
the foreseeable future (i.e., threatened) in a significant portion of
its range--that is, whether there is any portion of the species' range
for which both (1) the portion is significant; and (2) the species is
in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable
future in that portion. We can choose to address either question first.
Regardless of which question we address first, if we reach a negative
answer with respect to the first question that we address, we do not
need to evaluate the other question for that portion of the species'
range.
In undertaking this analysis for Geocarpon minimum, we choose to
address the status question first. We began by identifying portions of
the range where the biological status of the species may be different
from its biological status elsewhere in its range. For this purpose, we
considered information pertaining to the geographic distribution of (a)
individuals of the species, (b) the threats that the species faces, and
(c) the resiliency condition of populations.
We evaluated the range of Geocarpon minimum to determine if the
species is in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the
foreseeable future throughout any portion of its range. The range of a
species can theoretically be divided in an infinite number of ways. We
focused our analysis on portions of the species' range that may meet
the Act's definition of an endangered species or a threatened species.
For Geocarpon minimum, we considered whether the threats or their
effects on the species are greater in any biologically meaningful
portion of the species' range than in the rest of the range such that
the species is in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the
foreseeable future in that portion.
We examined the following threats: climate change, habitat
disturbance, vegetation encroachment, and development, including
cumulative effects. The location and magnitude of some threats may
impact the species differently in different portions of its range.
During the first phase of our analysis, we identified areas of
Geocarpon minimum's range that warranted further consideration. We
first assessed RUs representative of the two habitat types where the
species occurs: saline prairies encompassing the Arkansas Valley and
South Central Plains RUs and sandstone glades encompassing the Ozark
Highlands/Central Irregular Plains and Cross Timbers RUs. We assessed
the threats and species' response in the two areas (two saline prairie
RUs and two sandstone glade RUs).
As described above under Summary of Biological Status and Threats,
vegetation encroachment is a threat to Geocarpon minimum. The sandstone
glades may be more likely to be impacted by woody vegetation
encroachment whereas the saline prairies may be more likely to be
impacted by encroachment by mosses, dense annual vegetation, or
perennial grasses. While we found some differences in the most common
type of vegetation encroachment between the two habitat types, the best
available information indicates that the species' response to this
threat and the timing of this threat do not vary throughout the
species' range. Of the 16 analyzed saline prairie populations, 81% had
moderate or high resiliency. Similarly, of the 25 analyzed sandstone
glade populations, 72% had moderate or high resiliency. High
percentages of moderate and high resiliency populations in both habitat
types suggest that the species is responding similarly to distinct
stressors under a diverse array of environmental conditions. Comparable
species responses result in a similar status for these two portions of
the species' range, and therefore, Geocarpon minimum is not in danger
of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future in
either portion of its range.
We next assessed each of the four RUs for possible status
differences and significance. Having only two known populations, the
Arkansas Valley RU is the only RU that does not contain a population
that currently exhibits high resiliency, and we determined that this RU
requires further analysis because it may have a more vulnerable current
status than all other RUs. The Arkansas Valley RU has fewer populations
than other RUs and has overall lower resiliency, redundancy, and
representation. However, our assessment indicates that the species does
not face additional threats, or threats that impact Geocarpon minimum
to a greater extent, in the Arkansas Valley RU than elsewhere in the
species' range. Our future analysis projects no changes to species'
resiliency at the population or RU level, indicating that the status of
this and other RUs are not likely to shift in the foreseeable future.
We considered whether the Arkansas Valley RU is ``significant'' to
the conservation of Geocarpon minimum. The most recent definition of
``significant'' within Service policy guidance has been invalidated by
court order (see Desert Survivors v. U.S. Department of the Interior,
321 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1070-74 (N.D. Cal. 2018)). In light of the court
decision and for the purposes of this analysis, when identifying
whether a portion is ``significant,'' we considered (1) whether the
portion is a sufficiently large proportion of the current range, such
that it necessarily provides an important conservation value for the
species, or (2) otherwise contributes an important conservation value
for the species. The Arkansas Valley RU is not sufficiently large to
qualify as ``significant,'' as it comprises 6.54 percent of the species
range based on the total acreage of all RUs, and it contains just 1.02
percent of the total known available habitat (1411.53 ha (3487.88 ac))
based on element occurrence distribution. Additionally, the Arkansas
Valley RU only contains 2 element occurrences, which represents 5
percent of the total element occurrences. In our analysis of whether
the Arkansas Valley RU contributes an important conservation value for
the species, we considered whether the portion (1) is the geographic
core of the species' range, (2) includes important habitat features for
species conservation (e.g., a majority of, but not all, germination
areas), or (3) contains habitat of high or unique value (e.g., a
different habitat type in one area). We considered the ``geographic
core'' of a species' range to mean a portion containing a high
abundance or density of individuals of the species relative to its
geographic size. The number of Geocarpon minimum individuals and amount
of available habitat estimated to occur within the Arkansas Valley RU
is relatively small compared with other RUs (Service 2021, table 5, p.
36), so this area is not the geographic core of the species' range.
Further, these sites do not include unique habitat types for the
species as a whole, and the habitat conditions and population
characteristics of the two Arkansas Valley sites are intermediate
between those represented by other RU ecoregions. These findings
indicate that
[[Page 9546]]
the Arkansas Valley RU is not significant.
We found no biologically meaningful portion of Geocarpon minimum's
range where threats are impacting individuals differently from how they
are affecting the species elsewhere in its range such that the status
of the species in that portion differs from its status in any other
portion of its range. In the Arkansas Valley RU, where Geocarpon
minimum is only known to occur in one vulnerable and one moderately
resilient population, the best available information indicates that
this RU is not significant, and therefore, this RU does not represent a
significant portion of the range.
Therefore, we find that the species is not in danger of extinction
or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in any significant
portion of its range. This does not conflict with the courts' holdings
in Desert Survivors v. U.S. Department of the Interior, 321 F. Supp. 3d
1011, 1074-74 (N.D. Cal. 2018) and Center for Biological Diversity v.
Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d. 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017) because, in reaching
this conclusion, we did not apply the aspects of the Final Policy on
Interpretation of the Phrase ``Significant Portion of Its Range'' in
the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of ``Endangered Species'' and
``Threatened Species'' (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014), including the
definition of ``significant'' that those court decisions held to be
invalid.
Determination of Status
Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we
determine that Geocarpon minimum does not meet the definition of an
endangered species or a threatened species in accordance with sections
3(6) and 3(20) of the Act. In accordance with our regulations at 50 CFR
424.11(e)(2) currently in effect, Geocarpon minimum has recovered to
the point at which it no longer meets the definition of an endangered
species or a threatened species. Therefore, we propose to remove
Geocarpon minimum from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened
Plants.
Effects of This Rule
This proposed rule, if made final, would revise 50 CFR 17.12(h) by
removing Geocarpon minimum from the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Plants. The prohibitions and conservation measures provided
by the Act, particularly through sections 4 and 7, would no longer
apply to this species. Federal agencies would no longer be required to
consult with us under section 7 of the Act in the event that activities
they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect Geocarpon minimum. There
is no critical habitat designated for this species, so there would be
no effect to 50 CFR 17.96.
Post-Delisting Monitoring
Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us, in cooperation with the
States, to implement a monitoring program for not less than 5 years for
all species that have been recovered. Post-delisting monitoring (PDM)
refers to activities undertaken to verify that a species delisted due
to recovery remains secure from the risk of extinction after the
protections of the Act no longer apply. The primary goal of PDM is to
monitor the species to ensure that its status does not deteriorate and,
if a decline is detected, to take measures to halt the decline so that
proposing it as endangered or threatened is not again needed. If at any
time during the monitoring period data indicate that protective status
under the Act should be reinstated, we can initiate listing procedures,
including, if appropriate, emergency listing.
We have prepared a draft PDM plan for Geocarpon minimum. The draft
PDM plan: (1) Summarizes the status of Geocarpon minimum at the time of
proposed delisting; (2) describes frequency and duration of monitoring;
(3) discusses monitoring methods and potential sampling regimes; (4)
defines what potential triggers will be evaluated to address the need
for additional monitoring; (5) outlines reporting requirements and
procedures; (6) proposes a schedule for implementing the PDM plan; and
(7) defines responsibilities. It is our intent to work with our
partners towards maintaining the recovered status of Geocarpon minimum.
We appreciate any information on what should be included in post-
delisting monitoring strategies for this species (see Information
Requested, above).
Required Determinations
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long,
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994
(``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments;'' 59 FR 22951, May 4, 1994), E.O. 13175 (``Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments''), the President's
memorandum of November 30, 2022 (``Uniform Standards for Tribal
Consultation;'' 87 FR 74479, December 5, 2022), and the Department of
the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with federally recognized
Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations on a government-to-government
basis. In accordance with S.O. 3206 of June 5, 1997 (``American Indian
Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the
Endangered Species Act''), we readily acknowledge our responsibilities
to work directly with Tribes in developing programs for healthy
ecosystems, to acknowledge that Tribal lands are not subject to the
same controls as Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian
culture, and to make information available to Tribes.
During the SSA process, there were no known sites containing
Geocarpon minimum that were known to occur on Tribal lands or otherwise
impact Tribes. However, since the current SSA version was completed,
sites in Oklahoma occurring on lands near Tribal lands were discovered.
We have reached out to potentially interested Tribes, including the
Osage Nation, the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma, the Cherokee Nation, the
Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma, and the Wichita and Affiliated
Tribes, to request information and inform them of the status of our
evaluations of Geocarpon minimum. We will use any information received
to inform future versions of the SSA, and we will continue to work with
Tribal entities during the development of a final delisting
determination for Geocarpon minimum.
[[Page 9547]]
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the internet at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> and upon request from
the Arkansas Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Plants,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; 4201-4245, unless
otherwise noted.
0
2. In 17.12, amend paragraph (h) by removing the entry for ``Geocarpon
minimum'' under FLOWERING PLANTS from the List of Endangered and
Threatened Plants.
* * * * *
Brian Nesvik,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2026-03831 Filed 2-25-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on February 26, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.