Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for Big Red Sage, 7043-7056 [2025-01117]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules
watershed of the Amargosa River in
Oasis Valley, Nevada.
The petitioner also asked that we
consider using the emergency
provisions of the Act to list the species.
The petition clearly identified itself as
such and included the requisite
identification information for the
petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(c).
Listing a species on an emergency basis
is not a petitionable action under the
Act, and the question of when to list on
an emergency basis is left to the
discretion of the Service. If the Service
determines that the standard for
emergency listing in section 4(b)(7) of
the Act is met, the Service may exercise
that discretion to take an emergency
listing action at any time. Therefore, we
are considering the July 2, 2024, petition
as a petition to list the Oasis Valley
speckled dace. This finding addresses
the petition.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Finding
We reviewed the petition, sources
cited in the petition, and other readily
available information (within the
constraints of the Act and 50 CFR
424.14(h)(1)). We considered the
credible information that the petition
provided regarding effects of the threats
that fall within factors under the Act’s
section 4(a)(1) as potentially
ameliorated or exacerbated by any
existing regulatory mechanisms or
conservation efforts. Based on our
review of the petition and readily
available information] regarding gold
mining (Factor A), we find that the
petition presents substantial scientific
or commercial information indicating
that listing the Oasis Valley speckled
dace as an endangered species or a
threatened species may be warranted.
The petitioners also presented
information suggesting solar energy
development, water diversions,
livestock grazing, wild burros, invasive
species, climate change, and the effects
of isolated populations may be threats to
the Oasis Valley speckled dace We will
fully evaluate these potential threats
during our 12-month status review,
pursuant to the Act’s requirement to
review the best scientific and
commercial information available when
making that finding.
The basis for our finding on this
petition and other information regarding
our review of the petition can be found
as an appendix at https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–R8–ES–2024–0177 under the
Supporting Documents section.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Jan 18, 2025
Jkt 265001
Evaluation of a Petition To List
Tennessee Bottlebrush Crayfish
Species and Range
Tennessee bottlebrush crayfish
(Barbicambarus simmonsi); Lawrence
County, Tennessee, and Lauderdale
County, Alabama.
Petition History
On June 16, 2023, we received a
petition from CBD, requesting that the
Tennessee bottlebrush crayfish
(Barbicambarus simmonsi) be listed as a
threatened or endangered species and
critical habitat be designated for this
species under the Act. The petition
clearly identified itself as such and
included the requisite identification
information for the petitioner, required
at 50 CFR 424.14(c). This finding
addresses the petition.
Finding
We reviewed the petition, sources
cited in the petition, and other readily
available information (within the
constraints of the Act and 50 CFR
424.14(h)(1)). We considered the
credible information that the petition
provided regarding effects of the threats
that fall within factors under the Act’s
section 4(a)(1) as potentially
ameliorated or exacerbated by any
existing regulatory mechanisms or
conservation efforts. Based on our
review of the petition and readily
available information regarding habitat
destruction and alteration from the
effects of dams and land use practices
including agriculture, silviculture,
urban runoff, and wastewater treatment
facilities (Factor A), we find that the
petition presents substantial scientific
or commercial information indicating
that listing the Tennessee bottlebrush
crayfish as an endangered species or a
threatened species may be warranted.
The petitioners also presented
information suggesting overutilization
or collection and impacts of climate
change may be threats to the Tennessee
bottlebrush crayfish. The petitioners
also provided information that, despite
the existing regulatory mechanisms,
these potential threats are still affecting
the species. We will fully evaluate these
potential threats during our 12-month
status review, pursuant to the Act’s
requirement to review the best scientific
and commercial information available
when making that finding.
The basis for our finding on this
petition and other information regarding
our review of the petition can be found
at https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2024–0101
under the Supporting Documents
section.
PO 00000
Frm 00203
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
7043
Conclusion
On the basis of our evaluation of the
information presented in the petitions
under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we
have determined that the petitions
summarized above for the Amargosa
toad, Carson Valley monkeyflower,
golden-cheeked warbler, large marble
butterfly (including the large marble
butterfly type subspecies), Mohave
ground squirrel, Morrison bumble bee,
Oasis Valley speckled dace, and
Tennessee bottlebrush crayfish present
substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the
petitioned actions may be warranted.
We are, therefore, initiating status
reviews of these species to determine
whether the actions are warranted under
the Act. At the conclusion of the status
reviews, we will issue findings, in
accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the
Act, as to whether the petitioned actions
are not warranted, warranted, or
warranted but precluded by pending
proposals to determine whether any
species is an endangered species or a
threatened species.
Authors
The primary authors of this document
are staff members of the Ecological
Services Program, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
Authority
The authority for these actions is the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2025–01118 Filed 1–17–25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2024–0083;
FXES1111090FEDR–256–FF09E21000]
RIN 1018–BG16
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Endangered Species
Status for Big Red Sage
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
list the big red sage (Salvia
pentstemonoides), a plant species from
central Texas, as an endangered species
under the Endangered Species Act of
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\21JAP1.SGM
21JAP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
7044
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules
1973, as amended (Act). This
determination also serves as our 12month finding on a petition to list the
big red sage. After a review of the best
available scientific and commercial
information, we find that listing the
species is warranted. If we finalize this
rule as proposed, it would add this
species to the List of Endangered and
Threatened Plants and extend the Act’s
protections to the species. We have
determined that designating critical
habitat for the big red sage is not
prudent.
DATES: We will accept comments
received or postmarked on or before
March 24, 2025. 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 March 7, 2025.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. In the Search box,
enter FWS–R2–ES–2024–0083, which is
the docket number for this rulemaking.
Then, click on the Search button. On the
resulting page, in the 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–R2–ES–2024–0083, 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 https://
www.regulations.gov. This generally
means that we will post any personal
information you provide us (see
Information Requested, below, for more
information).
Availability of supporting materials:
Supporting materials, such as the
species status assessment report, are
available on the Service’s website at
https://www.fws.gov/office/austinecological-services, at https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket No.
FWS–R2–ES–2024–0083, or both.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Karen Myers, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Austin
Ecological Services Field Office, 1505
Ferguson Lane, Austin, TX 78754;
telephone 512–937–7371. Individuals in
the United States who are deaf,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Jan 18, 2025
Jkt 265001
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-ofcontact in the United States. Please see
Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2024–0083 on
https://www.regulations.gov for a
document that summarizes this
proposed rule.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under
the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), a
species warrants listing if it 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). If we
determine that a species warrants
listing, we must list the species
promptly and designate the species’
critical habitat to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable. We have
determined that the big red sage meets
the Act’s definition of an endangered
species; therefore, we are proposing to
list it as such. Listing a species as an
endangered or threatened 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. We
propose to list the big red sage as an
endangered species under the Act.
The basis for our action. Under the
Act, we may determine that a species is
an endangered or 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. We
have determined that big red sage is
endangered due to the following threats:
herbivory (Factor C), collection and
inappropriate propagation (Factor B),
land use changes (Factor A), and effects
from climate change such as flash floods
and erosion (Factor E).
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the
Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), to
the maximum extent prudent and
determinable, to designate critical
habitat concurrent with listing. We have
determined that designating critical
PO 00000
Frm 00204
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
habitat for big red sage is not prudent
because one of the main drivers of the
species’ status is direct mortality and
loss of genetic integrity resulting from
the collection of seeds and entire plants
from wild populations (Factor B). The
threat of collection potentially imperils
all populations whose geographic
locations are publicized and accessible
to the public. Since we have determined
that the species is threatened by taking
or other human activity and
identification of critical habitat can be
expected to increase the degree of such
threat to the species, we determine that
designation of critical habitat is not
prudent for the species.
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 governmental
agencies, Native American Tribes, the
scientific community, industry, or any
other interested parties concerning this
proposed rule. We particularly seek
comments concerning:
(1) The species’ biology, range, and
population trends, including:
(a) Biological or ecological
requirements of the species, including
habitat requirements for feeding,
breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range,
including distribution patterns and the
locations of any additional populations
of this species;
(d) Historical and current population
levels, and current and projected trends;
and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation
measures for the species, its habitat, or
both.
(2) Threats and conservation actions
affecting the species, including:
(a) Factors that may be affecting the
continued existence of the species,
which may include habitat modification
or destruction, overutilization, disease,
predation, the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms, or other natural
or manmade factors;
(b) Biological, commercial trade, or
other relevant data concerning any
threats (or lack thereof) to this species;
and
(c) Existing regulations or
conservation actions that may be
addressing threats to this species.
(3) Additional information concerning
the historical and current status of this
species.
(4) Information regarding our
determination that designating critical
E:\FR\FM\21JAP1.SGM
21JAP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules
habitat for the big red sage is not
prudent.
Please include sufficient information
with your submission (such as scientific
journal articles or other publications) to
allow us to verify any scientific or
commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely
stating support for, or opposition to, the
action under consideration without
providing supporting information,
although noted, 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 or a threatened
species must be made solely on the
basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available, and section
4(b)(2) of the Act directs that the
Secretary shall designate critical habitat
on the basis of the best scientific 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 https://
www.regulations.gov, 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 https://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive,
as well as supporting documentation we
used in preparing this proposed rule,
will be available for public inspection
on https://www.regulations.gov.
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. Based on
the new information we receive (and, if
relevant, any comments on that new
information), we may conclude that the
species is threatened instead of
endangered, or we may conclude that
the species does not warrant listing as
either an endangered species or a
threatened species. In our final rule, 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Jan 18, 2025
Jkt 265001
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 virtual public
hearings is consistent with our
regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3).
Previous Federal Actions
On June 18, 2007, Forest Guardians
(now Wild Earth Guardians) petitioned
the Service to list 475 species in the
southwestern United States, including
big red sage, as endangered or
threatened species under the Act. On
December 16, 2009, the Service
published in the Federal Register (74
FR 66866) a partial 90-day petition
finding that the petition provided
substantial information indicating that
the big red sage may warrant listing
under the Act. This document
constitutes the 12-month finding on the
petition to list the big red sage under the
Act.
Peer Review
A species status assessment (SSA)
team prepared an SSA report for the big
red sage. 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 big
red sage.
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 in listing actions under the Act
(https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/peer-review-policy-directorsmemo-2016-08-22.pdf), we solicited
independent scientific review of the
information contained in the big red
sage SSA report. We sent the SSA report
to four independent peer reviewers and
received three responses. Results of this
structured peer review process can be
PO 00000
Frm 00205
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
7045
found at https://www.regulations.gov. 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 we received
from the peer reviewers for substantive
issues and new information regarding
the contents of the SSA report. The peer
reviewers generally concurred with our
methods and conclusions, and provided
additional information, clarifications,
and suggestions, including clarifications
in terminology and discussions of
genetics and hydrology, and other
editorial suggestions. Otherwise, no
substantive changes to our analysis and
conclusions within the SSA report were
deemed necessary, and peer reviewer
comments are addressed in version 1.1
of the SSA report.
I. Proposed Listing Determination
Background
A thorough review of the taxonomy,
life history, and ecology of big red sage
is presented in the SSA report (version
1.1; Service 2023, pp. 2–11).
Big red sage is a perennial herbaceous
plant in the mint family (Lamiaceae)
that occurs along streams and narrow
ravines in the Edwards Plateau of
central Texas. The historical range of
the species includes Bandera, Bexar,
Comal, Gillespie, Kendall, Kerr, Real,
Uvalde, and Wilson Counties. Most big
red sage plants occur on bluffs, ledges,
and slopes along watercourses and
ravines where groundwater slowly seeps
through limestone to the surface.
Its long, crimson flowers with
purplish bases adorn 5-foot-tall stalks
that arise from rosettes of shiny, dark
green leaves (Service 2023, p. 2). Big red
sage flowers opportunistically from May
through November in response to
rainfall and the persistence of soil
moisture (Service 2023, p. 6). The
flowers are specifically pollinated by
hummingbirds (Wester 2007, pp. 40, 72;
Cibolo Center for Conservation 2021, p.
4); black-chinned hummingbirds
(Archilochus alexandri) are the most
abundant species throughout the range
and flowering period of the big red sage
(Service 2023, p. 8). Hummingbirds may
forage within discrete territories they
establish and defend around
concentrated nectar sources;
alternatively, they may also forage in a
more dispersed pattern along traplines,
in which rewarding nectar sources are
E:\FR\FM\21JAP1.SGM
21JAP1
7046
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules
visited repeatedly in a predictable
sequence (Tello-Ramos et al. 2015, pp.
812–813). Trapline foraging behavior
has been documented among blackchinned hummingbirds (Arizmendi and
Ornelas 1990, p. 177). Based on the
trapline forage range of other
hummingbird species (Gill 1988, entire),
we estimate that black-chinned
hummingbirds foraging along
consistent, regular routes may crosspollinate individuals of big red sage that
are separated by as much as 0.5 to 1.0
kilometers (km) (0.3 to 0.6 miles (mi)),
and thus are important vectors for the
species’ gene flow. However, the
species’ fecundity is low, and small,
inbred populations produce few viable
seeds (Service 2023, p. 9). Individual
plants can live at least 10 years, and the
rootstocks may branch to form multiple
rosettes that appear to be separate
individuals; therefore, the effective
population sizes may be less than the
numbers of individuals counted in
censuses (Service 2023, pp. 9–10).
The Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department’s (TPWD) Texas Natural
Diversity Database (TXNDD) maintains
geographic and population data of plant
and animal species of conservation
concern in Texas. Data for each species
are organized by standard geographical
units for populations and habitats called
‘‘source features’’ (SFs) and ‘‘element
occurrences’’ (EOs). SFs and EOs are
geographic locations where a species
has been recorded one or more times.
They may be displayed as points, lines,
or polygons buffered by their estimated
geographic precision. SFs may be
combined into a single E.O. if they are
separated by less than 1 km (0.6 mi) in
the wild (NatureServe 2002, p. 26).
Therefore, each E.O. may contain one or
more SFs. For the big red sage and other
plant species of conservation concern,
we use the E.O. standard as the unit of
analysis because it ensures consistency
among all the partners concerned with
the conservation and management of a
species, and this method involves
rigorous scientific investigations
spanning many years. We use numbers
to identify the EOs for the big red sage,
and all EOs are associated with unique
identifiers in the TXNDD (Service 2023,
pp. 26–27). Big red sage has been
documented at 18 EOs (see table 1,
below). Please refer to the SSA report
for a full list of EOs and their respective
SFs for the big red sage (Service 2023,
pp. 26–27).
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF THE EOS OF BIG RED SAGE
[TXNDD ranks each EO as historical (H) or extant (E). Those marked as historical may not have population estimates.]
Site name
County
1 .............
2 .............
3 .............
4 .............
5 .............
7 .............
8 .............
10 ...........
11 ...........
14 ...........
15 ...........
16 ...........
19 ...........
20 ...........
21 ...........
22 ...........
23 ...........
24 ...........
Barron Creek ..................................................................................
Guadalupe River at Kerrville ..........................................................
Verde Creek south of Kerrville .......................................................
Turtle Creek south of Kerrville .......................................................
Cibolo Creek near Boerne ..............................................................
Sutherland Springs .........................................................................
Frio Waterhole ................................................................................
Confluence of Bear Creek and Pedernales River ..........................
Can Creek and Hale Hollow at Lost Maples State Natural Area ..
Frederick Creek at Interstate 10 ....................................................
Big Joshua Creek ...........................................................................
Wilson Hollow .................................................................................
Comanche Springs on Salado Creek .............................................
North Fork Guadalupe River above Farm to Market Road 1340 ..
Blue Hole ........................................................................................
Pedernales River at Friedrich Road ...............................................
South Grape Creek east of Luckenbach ........................................
Canyon near Frederick Creek ........................................................
Kendall ................
Kerr .....................
Bandera/Kerr .......
Kerr .....................
Kendall ................
Wilson .................
Kerr .....................
Gillespie ..............
Bandera/Real ......
Kendall ................
Kendall ................
Real .....................
Bexar ...................
Kerr .....................
Real .....................
Gillespie ..............
Gillespie ..............
Kendall ................
Regulatory and Analytical Framework
Regulatory Framework
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
TXNDD
rank
EO No.
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Jan 18, 2025
Jkt 265001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00206
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
H
H
H
E
E
H
H
E
E
E
E
E
H
E
E
E
E
E
Most recent
population
estimate
Year of most
recent survey
........................
50
........................
0
170
........................
........................
0
4
401
0
2
........................
8
15
0
0
54
..........................
1894
..........................
2013
2013
..........................
..........................
2013
2013
2013
2013
1991
..........................
2016
2018
2013
2013
2013
the species, as well as other actions or
conditions that may ameliorate any
negative effects or may have positive
effects.
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
E:\FR\FM\21JAP1.SGM
21JAP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules
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 Act’s 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; ‘‘MOpinion,’’ available online at https://
www.doi.gov/sites/
doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/
uploads/M-37021.pdf). The foreseeable
future extends as far into the future as
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
National Marine Fisheries Service
(hereafter, the Services) 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
available data and taking into account
considerations such as the species’ lifehistory 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
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Jan 18, 2025
Jkt 265001
of the best scientific and commercial
data 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 listing as an endangered or
threatened species under the Act.
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 big red sage 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, pathogens). 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 the 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’ responses to positive
and negative environmental and
anthropogenic influences. Throughout
all of these stages, we used the best
available information 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–R2–ES–2024–0083
on https://www.regulations.gov.
PO 00000
Frm 00207
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
7047
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. For the big red sage to
maintain viability, its populations must
be highly resilient with sufficient
redundancy and representation. Several
factors influence the resiliency of big
red sage populations, including: (1)
herbivory, (2) land use changes, (3)
collection and inappropriate
propagation (i.e., breeding in captivity
using closely related wild-sourced
individuals that results in inbreeding
and decreased genetic diversity), and (4)
effects from climate change. These
resiliency factors and habitat elements
are discussed in detail in the SSA report
(Service 2023, entire) and are
summarized here.
Species Needs
Soil Moisture
Big red sage growth and flowering
require the maintenance of soil moisture
through rainfall and/or seepage through
fissures and cavities in the limestone
substrate. Flowering occurs
opportunistically from May through
November in response to rainfall and
the presence of soil moisture (Service
2023, p. 6). Big red sage individuals
establish on bluffs, ledges, and slopes
along watercourses (including firstorder streams) where soil moisture is
relatively persistent (Correll and
Johnston 1978, p. 1368; Pasztor 2004, p.
1; Poole et al. 2007, p. 437). Big red sage
populations most often occur within
165 feet (50 meters) of watercourses and
where slopes are greater than 25 percent
(Taylor and O’Kennon 2013, pp. 3–5).
The species is endemic to the riparian
ravines in the Edwards Plateau, and it
occurs in specific positions where
intermittent seepage occurs.
Additionally, portions of EOs appear to
obtain moisture from a major aquifer,
the Edwards-Trinity or Trinity, at least
when aquifer levels are high (Service
2023, pp. 37–38).
Minimum Viable Population
Highly resilient populations of big red
sage must also have stable or increasing
demographic trends over time. This
means that recruitment of new
individuals is at least as great as the
mortality rate, and populations must be
large enough to have a high probability
of surviving a prescribed period of time.
Species that have more populations
distributed over a broader geographic
E:\FR\FM\21JAP1.SGM
21JAP1
7048
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
range have a greater chance of surviving
catastrophic events (Shaffer and Stein
2000, pp. 308–310). Species or
populations are highly resilient when
the probability of persisting 100 years is
greater than 90 percent (Mace and
Lande 1991, p. 151). This metric of
population resilience is called
minimum viable population (MVP)
(Pavlik 1996, p. 137). We estimate that
highly resilient populations have an
MVP of at least 1,600 individuals of
reproductive age (Service 2023, pp. 32–
33). MVP for a species varies based on
different traits of that species, including,
but not limited to, longevity (i.e.,
perennial vs. annual), growth form (i.e.,
woody vs. herbaceous), fecundity, and
longevity of seed viability. We
determined that the MVP of 1,600
individuals for big red sage based on the
specific traits of big red sage, which fall
in the moderate range of several of these
categories (Pavlik 1996, p. 137). For
example, big red sage is perennial,
occurs in old-growth vegetation, plants
may produce a moderate number of
ramets (physically separate but
genetically identical individuals) that
branch off the original root system, it is
herbaceous, has low fecundity,
individual survivorship is low, and
environmental variation is high (Service
2024, p. 33). Therefore, populations
require a moderately high MVP to
persist for 100 years.
Individual and Population Connectivity
Small, reproductively isolated
populations are susceptible to the loss
of genetic diversity, to genetic drift, and
to inbreeding (Barrett and Kohn 1991,
pp. 3–30). Additionally, the loss of
genetic diversity may reduce the ability
of a species or population to resist
pathogens and parasites, to adapt to
changing environmental conditions, or
to colonize new habitats (Service 2023,
p. 34). Conversely, populations that pass
through a genetic bottleneck may
subsequently benefit through the
elimination of harmful alleles.
Nevertheless, the net result of the loss
of genetic diversity is likely to be a loss
of fitness and lower chance of survival
of populations and of the species.
Additionally, the seeds of big red sage
have a very limited dispersal range
(Service 2023, p. 34). The forage range
for the black-chinned hummingbird, an
important pollinator of big red sage,
determines the typical limits of gene
flow between individuals (Service 2023,
p. 34). We estimate that this limit may
be from 0.5 to 1.0 km (0.3 to 0.6 mi)
(Service 2023, p. 34). When the limits of
gene flow are unknown, we apply the
TXNDD’s use of the NatureServe default
minimum separation distance of 1.0 km
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Jan 18, 2025
Jkt 265001
(0.6 mi) to delineate populations
(NatureServe 2020, p. 4). Therefore, big
red sage populations must have
sufficient numbers of individuals and
populations that are not too closely
related or too widely dispersed for
effective pollination, outcrossing, and
seed production.
Risk Factors for Big Red Sage
We reviewed the potential risk factors
(i.e., threats, stressors) that could be
currently affecting the big red sage. In
this proposed rule, we will discuss only
those factors in detail that could
meaningfully impact the status of the
species. The primary risk factors (i.e.,
threats) affecting the status of big red
sage are herbivory (Factor C), collection
and inappropriate propagation (Factor
B), land use changes (Factor A), and
effects from climate change (Factor E).
Herbivory
Big red sage is palatable to browsing
herbivores, such as white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus), introduced
ungulates, and goats (Capra hircus).
Within large portions of the range of the
big red sage, the numbers of white-tailed
deer are about three times greater than
the recommended sustainable deer
population levels (Morrow 2020, p. 8;
Armstrong and Young 2000, p. 20;
Service 2023, p. 36). In addition to
native white-tailed deer, several species
of nonnative ungulate game animals
have been introduced in the Edwards
Plateau (Mungall and Sheffield 1994,
pp. 188–194). Some introduced
ungulates have escaped and established
large breeding populations in the wild,
compounding the browsing pressure
from native white-tailed deer.
Additionally, ranchers also introduced
large numbers of goats in Real County
and elsewhere in the Edwards Plateau
beginning in the early 20th century
(Minton 2019, unpaginated). Since goats
are voracious browsers and nimble
scalers of rocky slopes, large numbers of
goats likely had a severe impact on
populations of big red sage before
conservationists began searching for the
species.
Browsing from unsustainably large
populations of deer has eradicated big
red sage from all known habitats except
areas that are inaccessible to deer, such
as bluffs and steep slopes (Taylor and
O’Kennon 2013, p. 10). Herbivory has
already resulted in the decline of two of
the seven remaining EOs of big red sage
(EOs 11 and 14) (Ward 2010, p. 2).
Therefore, herbivory, and thus mortality
of individual plants, by native and
introduced ungulates has severely
affected all populations throughout the
PO 00000
Frm 00208
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
species’ range and is a continuing severe
threat throughout the range.
Land Use Changes
Current rates of human population
growth are stable or decreasing in Real,
Bandera, and Uvalde Counties;
increasing moderately in Kerr and
Gillespie Counties; and increasing
rapidly in Kendall County (Service
2023, pp. 83–84). Although bluffs and
steep slopes are not suitable for most
forms of land development, many big
red sage populations occur near
watercourses where human activities
are concentrated (Service 2023, p. 30).
Construction and maintenance of
houses, roads, bridges, and other
recreational land uses may impact these
populations of big red sage.
All or portions of four EOs (2, 10, 19,
22) have been lost to development or
land use changes that altered the native
plant community (Taylor and O’Kennon
2013, pp. 6, 8, 9; TXNDD 2019, pp. 3,
4, 15, 16, 35, 36, 43). In these cases,
some individuals were likely to have
been destroyed when habitats were
converted to buildings or pavement, or
when nonnative vegetation was
introduced in developed areas, while
others may have died as a result of other
drastic changes to the habitat.
In addition to losses that are directly
attributable to urban and residential
development, an increase in the amount
of impermeable surfaces or a loss of
vegetative cover may reduce the
infiltration of water into the ground; this
in turn may reduce the availability and
constancy of seep moisture that sustains
big red sage individuals and
populations. The drying of these
seepage areas may impact big red sage
populations because of the reduction of
necessary soil moisture for sustaining
plant and population growth (Taylor
and O’Kennon 2013, pp. 10–11). Three
of the remaining seven EOs (EOs 5, 14,
and 24) are currently at the greatest risk
to development. Based on the extent of
land use changes to known populations
and current rates of human population
growth in the encompassing counties,
we estimate that this threat currently
affects 25 percent of all extant
populations. Therefore, land use
changes are a continuing, potentially
severe threat throughout the species’
range.
Collection From the Wild and the Loss
of Genetic Integrity Due to Inappropriate
Propagation
Big red sage is used in landscapes and
pollinator gardens, both within its
native range in Texas as well as
throughout North America and
elsewhere. It has been propagated and
E:\FR\FM\21JAP1.SGM
21JAP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules
sold by several commercial nurseries
since 1986 (Enquist 1987, p. 5). Seeds
and entire plants have been collected
from the wild for landscaping and
commercial propagation from at least
two EOs (14 and 20) that are accessible
to the public (Collier 1989, pp. 1–2;
Taylor and O’Kennon 2013, p. 11). E.O.
14, the source of at least one propagated
population (Hoban and Garner 2019, p.
1), was widely known and easily
accessible to the public. In 1988, the
State Department of Highways and
Public Transportation placed signs at
E.O. 14 stating, ‘‘Non Mowing Area,’’
‘‘Wildflower Research Area,’’ and
‘‘Property of State of Texas, Penalty for
Private Use.’’ On June 27, 1989, State
Department of Highways and Public
Transportation maintenance personnel
found the signs pulled out of the ground
with cut flowering stems of the big red
sage placed on top of them, with
evidence of digging and cutting of the
plants (Collier 1989, pp. 1–2). Therefore,
there is confirmation that collection
contributed to the decline of that
population, along with other possible
causes, including a major flood,
competition from invasive plants, and
ungulate browsing (Service 2023, p. 10).
Other EOs, such as 11 and 21, are
vulnerable to collection from the wild;
undocumented populations may also
have been discovered and depleted by
collectors. Although the habitat of E.O.
11 is intact and is in high condition, and
the site is protected as a State Natural
Area, this population has declined 87
percent over 31 years (Service 2023, pp.
22, 65). This decline can be attributed
to illicit collection because the
collection sites have been publicized.
However, additional factors may have
also contributed to this decline,
including herbivory by over-abundant
white-tailed deer and introduced
ungulates, and the demographic and
genetic consequences of small
population sizes. Because collection and
sale of the big red sage has been ongoing
for decades, we conclude that collection
from wild populations is a potentially
severe, continuing threat to all
populations that occur in sites that are
known to and accessible by the public.
Inappropriate propagation is also a
threat to big red sage. Propagation, in
general, is a useful tool for plant
conservation. However, there are several
potential risks if conducted without
regard for the conservation of a species’
genetic integrity. Propagated plant
populations often arise from a very
small number of founders collected
from the wild, and propagated
populations may lose alleles, and thus
experience a decline in genetic diversity
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Jan 18, 2025
Jkt 265001
through genetic drift (the random
reduction in frequency of alleles or the
complete loss of alleles). Genetic drift
occurs most rapidly when the number of
breeding individuals is small.
Additionally, propagated populations
may also experience a decrease in
genetic diversity through deliberate or
inadvertent selection. Selection leads to
non-random changes in allele
frequencies and non-random losses of
alleles. Deliberate selection occurs when
seeds are selected from plants with
specific desirable traits, such as size,
form, or flower color, and are used to
propagate subsequent generations.
Inadvertent selection occurs as an
unintended consequence of
propagation. For example, growers
typically retain only the individuals that
germinate readily and then use those
individuals as future seed sources;
consequently, propagated populations
frequently lose the seed dormancy
mechanisms that benefit the survival of
wild populations. Each successive
propagated generation incrementally
changes the frequencies of alleles in the
gene pool, including the complete loss
of alleles. Ultimately, both deliberate
and inadvertent selection lead to plants
that are more fit in cultivation but less
likely to persist if transplanted back into
the wild (Service 2023, p. 39).
Through propagation, it is possible to
create unlimited numbers of individuals
that, once released to the wild, may
interbreed with and overwhelm the
much smaller wild populations with a
very narrow sample of the species’
original genetic diversity, thus causing
the loss of rare wild genotypes. Release
of individuals bred in cultivation may
also introduce genes that reduce fitness
(e.g., loss of seed dormancy) into the
wild population, as discussed above.
Finally, horticulturalists and plant
collectors may bring big red sage into
proximity with other Salvia species that
are geographically separated in the wild;
if these taxa can breed with each other,
this could lead to hybridization. An
escape of hybridized Salvia species into
the wild populations could lead to the
extinction of the original wild genotype
through interbreeding.
We have no evidence that the progeny
of propagated individuals of big red sage
have colonized wild population sites.
Nevertheless, propagated big red sage
populations have very low genetic
diversity (Hoban and Garner 2019, p. 4).
We conclude that inappropriate
propagation is a potentially severe
threat of unknown extent to the genetic
integrity of the remaining wild
populations and the species.
PO 00000
Frm 00209
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
7049
Effects From Climate Change
The Summary for Policy Makers in
the Sixth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change concluded that global surface
temperatures will continue to increase
until at least the mid-century under all
emissions scenarios considered; the
frequency and intensity of hot extremes,
marine heatwaves, and agricultural and
ecological droughts will increase in
some regions; and heavy precipitation
events will become more frequent (IPCC
2021, pp. 16–20). The U.S. Global
Climate Research Program (USGCRP)
Fourth National Climate Assessment
reports that average annual
temperatures from 1986 to 2016 have
increased in the Southern Great Plains,
which includes the range of big red
sage, by 0.42 degrees Celsius (°C) (0.76
degrees Fahrenheit (°F)), compared to
the 1901 to 1960 baseline (USGCRP
2017, p. 187). The frequency of heavy
precipitation events in the Southern
Great Plains has increased from 1901 to
2016 and 1948 to 2016 (USGCRP 2017,
pp. 20 –212) and is projected to
continue to increase under both
moderate and high emission scenarios.
Because the big red sage only occurs
where there is seep moisture along the
slopes and bluffs of canyons and
ravines, it requires relatively persistent
soil moisture. Additionally, to evaluate
how a changing climate may affect big
red sage, we used the National Climate
Change Viewer to compare past and
projected future climate conditions for
the Upper Guadalupe River watershed
in Texas. The National Climate Change
Viewer projects a decrease in soil water
storage and an increase in summer
evaporative deficit by 2050 to 2074,
indicating that soil moisture will
become more limiting to plant growth,
and thus will restrict the big red sage to
a smaller amount of suitable habitat
(Service 2023, p. 42). Although climate
models do not consistently project how
total rainfall may change, the ongoing
trend toward greater extremes in rainfall
will likely increase with rising
temperatures. We expect that mortality
will increase and recruitment will
decrease during longer, more severe
droughts. Furthermore, the increasing
frequency and intensity of heavy rainfall
events will also exacerbate the threat of
flash flooding. Flash floods have already
caused population declines at EOs 5 and
14, and EO 15 was completely destroyed
by a landslide when the bluff above it
collapsed, which may have been caused
by flooding along Big Joshua Creek.
Flood waters may uproot individual
plants or wash away their substrates, or
the plants may be buried under silt and
E:\FR\FM\21JAP1.SGM
21JAP1
7050
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules
debris (Service 2023, p. 40). Many EOs
that occur along watercourses have
individuals established below the highwater level that will likely be destroyed
by a flood event at some point in the
future (Taylor and O’Kennon 2013, p.
10). We conclude that the direct and
indirect effects of climate change and
associated flash floods and bank erosion
represent a potentially severe threat to
the portions of big red sage populations
that are close to watercourses and below
the high-water level of floods
throughout the species’ range.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Summary
Several historical and ongoing
influences, including herbivory, land
use changes, collection, and
inappropriate propagation, may affect
the viability of the big red sage. The
most pervasive threats to the species are
herbivory and collection, which have
already resulted in the extirpation and
decline of several populations.
Additionally, climate change is
expected to exacerbate impacts from all
aforementioned threats.
Conservation Efforts and Regulatory
Mechanisms
TPWD has previously supported two
grants that promoted the conservation of
the big red sage. The 2012 Texas
Conservation Action Plan identified a
research priority to study the
distribution of and threats to the big red
sage. This led to a wildlife conservation
grant to update the species’ status
(Taylor and O’Kennon 2013, entire). The
TPWD Conservation License Plate
Program supported an investigation of
the species’ conservation genetics in
2019 (Hoban and Garner 2019, pp. 1–2).
This genetic study was conducted at EO
11 located at Lost Maples State Natural
Area, which is protected by TPWD.
Although the habitat is intact and the
site is protected as a State Natural Area,
this population has declined 87 percent
over 31 years. Factors that may have
contributed to this decline include
herbivory by overabundant white-tailed
deer and introduced ungulates, as well
as the demographic and genetic
consequences of a small population
size. Since the collection sites have been
publicized, it is also possible that illicit
collection may also have contributed to
this decline. TPWD is currently
supporting a third project, funded
through the Service’s cooperative
endangered species conservation fund
(see 16 U.S.C. 1535(i)). The objectives of
this project are to seek access to private
lands and conduct surveys for new
populations, collect seeds from wild
populations, and propagate seeds of
wild populations to increase seed
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Jan 18, 2025
Jkt 265001
available for reintroduction and
augmentation of populations, scientific
research, and seed banking.
One of the largest populations of the
big red sage occurs at Cibolo Bluffs (EO
5), which is owned by Cibolo Center for
Conservation and is monitored annually
by volunteers of the Cibolo Center for
Conservation and trustees of Cibolo
Preserve. In 2005, there was a big red
sage reintroduction at Cibolo Center for
Conservation (formerly Cibolo Nature
Center) from seeds obtained from the
Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center
and collected from the wild (likely
Cibolo Bluffs). Results from this
reintroduction suggest that the big red
sage may be relatively resilient to the
wide extremes in annual rainfall that
characterize the Edwards Plateau
(Service 2023, p. 46). However, none of
the individuals that were planted
outside of exclosures survived,
indicating that herbivory by
overabundant white-tailed deer is a
severe threat to the survival of the big
red sage. While the protected
individuals declined over time, they
also produced large numbers of seeds,
with new big red sage individuals found
growing nearby along a creek in 2013.
In summary, this small pilot
reintroduction demonstrates that it is
possible to establish new population
sources or to augment existing
populations, provided that the sites are
protected from white-tailed deer and
other ungulates.
Cumulative Effects
We note that, by using the SSA
framework to guide our analysis of the
scientific information documented in
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.
Species Condition
We used the U.S. Geological Survey’s
hydrologic unit code watershed
boundaries to delineate four
representation areas of the big red sage:
Guadalupe, Cibolo, Frio-Sabinal, and
Pedernales. The current condition of the
big red sage considers the risks to the
populations previously and currently.
PO 00000
Frm 00210
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
For each EO, we developed and
assigned categories for the species’
demographic and habitat conditions to
measure population resiliency of the big
red sage. Our analysis was conducted at
the EO level, but some individual SFs
may have different conditions than the
EO in which it falls.
Seven EOs (EO numbers 5, 11, 14, 16,
20, 21, and 24) are extant and seven EOs
(EO numbers 2, 4, 10, 15, 19, 22, and 23)
are extirpated (Service 2024, p. 50).
There are 4 EOs that were reliably
recorded in the past for which there
have been no recent visits, or the exact
geographic location is unknown (EO
numbers 1, 3, 7, and 8). We considered
these previously documented
populations where we could not
determine if they are currently extant or
extirpated as ‘‘non-contributing’’ (i.e.,
not contributing to the overall viability
of the species), and they are not
included in the overall condition
assessment of the species. Therefore, we
consider there to be 14 known historical
populations contributing to our
understanding of the overall viability of
the species.
We used MVP as the metric to
determine the population condition
(i.e., resiliency) for each EO (Pavlik
1996, p. 137). MVP is an estimate of
population size needed for a population
to have a high probability of surviving
100 years, which for the big red sage is
1,600 individuals (Service 2023, p. 33).
The estimate of MVP is based only on
numbers of mature individuals (those
that have flowered at least once or are
judged capable of flowering) because
juveniles that die before they reproduce
do not contribute to the effective
population size or future genetic
diversity.
We categorized the population
condition of each EO as high, moderate,
low, or extirpated. EOs are in high
condition when they have the estimated
MVP of 1,600 mature individuals,
meaning the populations would likely
persist for 100 years. Moderate
condition is a population of at least 100
individuals, which is a population size
that is likely to persist for at least 10
years and has the ability to have
increased resiliency through
conservation and management. We
adopt 10 years as the threshold for
moderate condition because 10 years is
the observed lifespan of an individual
and it is long enough for both
recruitment and mortality to occur and
for demographic trends to emerge
(Taylor 2021, pers. comm.). Low
condition is a population size fewer
than 100 individuals that is not likely to
persist 10 years and is unlikely to
increase resilience without
E:\FR\FM\21JAP1.SGM
21JAP1
7051
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules
augmentation as well as conservation
and management.
The evaluation of habitat conditions
of the EOs includes the amount and
percent of good and excellent habitat,
the presence of gaps between areas of
good or excellent habitat, the proximity
of urban and residential development,
and the abundance of forested ravines
and tributaries that connect to the EOs
(Service 2023, p. 54). High habitat
condition was categorized by having, on
average, abundant potential habitat, few
(if any) significant habitat gaps, low
proximity to or absence of nearby urban
and residential development, and
abundant tributary ravines. Moderate
habitat condition was categorized by
having, on average, relatively abundant
potential habitat, large or several gaps
between suitable habitat areas, some
proximity to urban and residential
development, and few forested ravines
and tributaries. Low habitat condition
was categorized by having, on average,
low amounts of potential habitat, many
or large significant habitat gaps, large
amounts or very nearby urban and
residential development, and few to no
nearby forested ravines and tributaries.
We categorized the overall condition of
each EO as the lesser of the population
condition and habitat condition (see
table 2, below). There are several
populations that were reliably recorded
in the past for which there have been no
recent visits, or the exact geographic
location is unknown. We considered
these previously documented
populations where we could not
determine if they are currently extant or
extirpated as ‘‘non-contributing’’ (i.e.,
not contributing to the overall viability
of the species), and they are not
included in the overall condition
assessment of the species.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATION AREAS, POPULATION AND HABITAT CONDITIONS, AND OVERALL RESILIENCE OF
THE EOS OF BIG RED SAGE
Representation
area
Element
occurrence
Population
condition
Habitat
condition
Guadalupe or Pedernales
Guadalupe .........................
Guadalupe .........................
Guadalupe .........................
Guadalupe .........................
Guadalupe .........................
Guadalupe .........................
Guadalupe .........................
Unknown ............................
Cibolo ................................
Cibolo ................................
Cibolo ................................
Non-Contributing ...............
Extirpated ..........................
Non-Contributing ...............
Non-Contributing ...............
Non-Contributing ...............
Extirpated ..........................
Extirpated ..........................
Moderate ...........................
Non-Contributing ...............
Non-Contributing ...............
Non-Contributing ...............
Moderate ...........................
Not Determined .................
Developed .........................
Not Determined .................
High ...................................
Low ....................................
Low ....................................
Not Determined .................
High ...................................
Unknown ...........................
High ...................................
Moderate ...........................
High ...................................
Non-Contributing.
Extirpated.
Non-Contributing.
Non-Contributing.
Non-Contributing.
Extirpated.
Extirpated.
Moderate.
Non-Contributing.
Non-Contributing.
Non-Contributing.
Moderate.
Cibolo ................................
Cibolo ................................
Frio-Sabinal .......................
Frio-Sabinal .......................
Frio-Sabinal .......................
Frio-Sabinal .......................
Pedernales ........................
1 ........................................
2 ........................................
3 ........................................
4-Upper Turtle Creek ........
4-Middle Turtle Creek .......
4-Lower Turtle Creek ........
15 ......................................
20 ......................................
7 ........................................
5-Upstream Cibolo Creek
5-Midstream Cibolo Creek
5-Downstream Cibolo
Creek.
14 ......................................
24 ......................................
8 ........................................
11 ......................................
16 ......................................
21 ......................................
10 ......................................
Moderate ...........................
Moderate ...........................
High ...................................
High ...................................
High ...................................
High ...................................
Not Determined .................
Pedernales ........................
Pedernales ........................
Headwaters Salado Creek
22 ......................................
23 ......................................
19 ......................................
Moderate ...........................
Moderate ...........................
Non-Contributing ...............
Low ....................................
Low ....................................
Low ....................................
Extirpated/Non-Contributing.
Extirpated ..........................
Extirpated ..........................
Extirpated ..........................
Moderate.
Moderate.
Non-Contributing.
Low.
Low.
Low.
Extirpated/Non-Contributing.
Extirpated.
Extirpated.
Extirpated.
The species’ total known populations
have declined by 46 percent since 1988.
Twenty-eight percent of known EOs
have been completely extirpated. All
known EOs in the Pedernales
representation area are extirpated. The
Guadalupe representation area has only
one remaining E.O., which is in
moderate condition. The Frio-Sabinal
representation area has three EOs, all of
which are in low condition. The Cibolo
representation area has three EOs in
moderate condition that are currently
isolated, or nearly isolated, from each
other by urban, residential, and
recreational development.
Redundancy for the big red sage is
characterized by having multiple,
sufficiently resilient populations
distributed across the spring systems
historically occupied by the species for
the species to be able to withstand
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Jan 18, 2025
Jkt 265001
Not Determined .................
Not Determined .................
Developed .........................
catastrophic events. Species that have
redundant, sufficiently resilient
populations distributed across their
historical ranges are less susceptible to
the risk of extinction from catastrophic
events. Of the 14 known historical
populations of big red sage, 7 have
become extirpated. Therefore,
redundancy has been significantly
reduced from historical levels, making
the species more vulnerable to
catastrophic events such as flash floods
and prolonged drought.
Representation reflects a species’
capacity to adapt to changing
environmental conditions over time and
can be characterized by genetic and
ecological diversity within and among
populations. We describe species
representation for the big red sage as
genetic diversity both within and among
populations. Current populations of big
PO 00000
Frm 00211
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Overall EO
resilience
red sage have very low overall species
diversity and small population sizes and
are likely to continue to experience
declines in genetic diversity and
increased inbreeding (Hoban and Garner
2019, pp. 3–4). Although the big red
sage has critically low genetic diversity,
wild populations maintain greater
genetic diversity than propagated
populations (Hoban and Garner 2019,
pp. 3–4). When coupled with small
population sizes, big red sage
populations may experience an
increased loss in genetic variation,
resulting in a population’s reduced
ability to survive and reproduce (i.e.,
inbreeding depression) (Hoban and
Garner 2019, p. 4). The big red sage
occurs only in small, isolated groups of
individuals, which are susceptible to
the loss of genetic diversity, to genetic
drift, and to inbreeding (Barrett and
E:\FR\FM\21JAP1.SGM
21JAP1
7052
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules
Kohn 1991, pp. 3–30). This is evident in
propagated populations of big red sage
with known low genetic diversity that
did not produce viable seeds (Hoban
and Garner 2019, p. 4). Because of the
species’ low genetic diversity, its ability
to withstand stochastic events and adapt
to changing environmental conditions is
reduced.
In summary, of the 14 known
historical populations, 7 are extirpated
and 7 are extant. This reduced
redundancy makes the species more
susceptible to catastrophic events such
as floods and prolonged drought.
Furthermore, of the extant populations,
only four populations are expected to
persist at least 10 years and three
populations are likely to become
extirpated within 10 years. The
remaining populations are small, are
isolated, and have low genetic diversity,
making them less able to withstand
stochastic events.
As part of the SSA, we also developed
two future condition scenarios to
capture the range of uncertainties
regarding future threats and the
projected responses by the big red sage.
Because we determined that the current
condition of the big red sage is
consistent with an endangered species
(see Determination of the Big Red Sage’s
Status, below), we are not presenting the
results of the future scenarios in this
proposed rule. Please refer to the SSA
report (Service 2023, pp. 78–98) for the
full analysis of future scenarios.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Determination of the Big Red Sage’s
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Jan 18, 2025
Jkt 265001
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 big red
sage has declined from known historical
levels in size and number of
populations. Our analysis revealed
several factors that caused this decline
and pose a meaningful risk to the
viability of the species. These threats are
primarily related to habitat changes
(Factor A), including land use changes;
overutilization (Factor B) by collection
and inappropriate propagation;
herbivory (Factor C); and the effects of
climate change (Factor E).
Of the 14 known historical
populations, 7 are extirpated and 7 are
extant. This decline in number of
populations from known historical
levels indicates a reduced level of
redundancy, making the big red sage
more vulnerable to catastrophic events
such as flash floods. Of the seven extant
populations, only four populations are
expected to persist at least 10 years and
three are likely to become extirpated
within 10 years. These levels of
resiliency of the remaining populations
exhibit a lowered ability of the species
to withstand environmental and
demographic stochasticity.
Additionally, overall genetic diversity of
the species is low, meaning that the
species may not be adequately able to
adapt to both near-term and long-term
changes in its physical and biological
environment (i.e., the species may lack
adaptive capacity).
The most pervasive threats to the
species are herbivory and collection and
inappropriate propagation. Browsing
from unsustainably large populations of
deer has eradicated big red sage from all
known habitats except areas that are
inaccessible to deer, such as bluffs and
steep slopes (Taylor and O’Kennon
2013, p. 10). Herbivory has already
resulted in the decline of several EOs of
big red sage, including EOs 11 and 14
(Ward 2010, p. 2). Seeds and entire
plants have been collected from the
wild for landscaping and commercial
propagation from at least two EOs (14
and 20) that are accessible to the public
(Collier 1989, pp. 1–2; Taylor and
O’Kennon 2013, p. 11). E.O. 14 was
widely known and easily accessible to
the public, and collection contributed to
the decline of that population, which
remains extant.
These threats, in addition to land use
changes and effects from climate
change, have reduced available habitat
for the big red sage and resulted in the
direct and indirect destruction of
individual plants and entire
PO 00000
Frm 00212
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
populations. All or portions of four EOs
have been lost to development or land
use changes where individual plants
were likely to have been destroyed
when habitats were converted to
buildings or pavement, or when
nonnative vegetation was introduced in
developed areas, while others may have
died as a result of other drastic changes
to the habitat (Taylor and O’Kennon
2013, pp. 6, 8, 9; TXNDD 2019, pp. 3,
4, 15, 16, 35, 36, 43). Effects from
climate change such as flash floods have
already caused population declines at
three EOs, one of which was completely
destroyed. Flood waters may uproot
individual plants or wash away their
substrates, or the plants may be buried
under silt and debris (Service 2023, p.
40).
In summary, the big red sage is very
susceptible to extirpations from
catastrophic events and has limited
adaptive capacity. The number of
known populations has already been
reduced from 14 to 7 populations due to
herbivory, collection and inappropriate
propagation, land use changes, and
effects from climate change, all of which
remain active threats to existing
populations. The species is in danger of
extinction due to the aforementioned
threats, which have historically
impacted, and are currently impacting,
the species and reducing its viability
across its range. We do not find the
species meets the Act’s definition of a
threatened species because the species
has already shown declines in the
number and resiliency of populations.
Half of known populations have already
become extirpated due to the threats
mentioned above, and all remaining
populations are at risk due to the same
threats. Because current redundancy is
reduced from known historical levels,
and representation is limited due to low
genetic diversity, the species is
vulnerable to catastrophic and
stochastic events. Thus, after assessing
the best scientific and commercial data
available, we determine that the big red
sage is in danger of extinction
throughout all of its range.
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. We have
determined that the big red sage is in
danger of extinction throughout all of its
range and accordingly did not undertake
an analysis of any significant portion of
its range. Because the big red sage
warrants listing as endangered
E:\FR\FM\21JAP1.SGM
21JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules
throughout all of its range, our
determination does not conflict with the
decision in Center for Biological
Diversity v. Everson, 435 F. Supp. 3d 69
(D.D.C. 2020), because that decision
related to significant portion of the
range analyses for species that warrant
listing as threatened, not endangered,
throughout all of their range.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Determination of Status
Our review of the best available
scientific and commercial information
indicates that the big red sage meets the
Act’s definition of an endangered
species. Therefore, we propose to list
the big red sage as an endangered
species in accordance with sections 3(6)
and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to
species listed as endangered or
threatened species under the Act
include recognition as a listed species,
planning and implementation of
recovery actions, requirements for
Federal protection, and prohibitions
against certain practices. Recognition
through listing results in public
awareness, and conservation by Federal,
State, Tribal, and local agencies, foreign
governments, private organizations, and
individuals. The Act encourages
cooperation with the States and other
countries and calls for recovery actions
to be carried out for listed species. The
protection required by Federal agencies,
including the Service, and the
prohibitions against certain activities
are discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the
conservation of endangered and
threatened species and the ecosystems
upon which they depend. The ultimate
goal of such conservation efforts is the
recovery of these listed species, so that
they no longer need the protective
measures of the Act. Section 4(f) of the
Act calls for the Service to develop and
implement recovery plans for the
conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The goal of this
process is to restore listed species to a
point where they are secure, selfsustaining, and functioning components
of their ecosystems.
The recovery planning process begins
with development of a recovery outline
made available to the public soon after
a final listing determination. The
recovery outline guides the immediate
implementation of urgent recovery
actions while a recovery plan is being
developed. Recovery teams (composed
of species experts, Federal and State
agencies, nongovernmental
organizations, and stakeholders) may be
established to develop and implement
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Jan 18, 2025
Jkt 265001
recovery plans. The recovery planning
process involves the identification of
actions that are necessary to halt and
reverse the species’ decline by
addressing the threats to its survival and
recovery. The recovery plan identifies
recovery criteria for review of when a
species may be ready for reclassification
from endangered to threatened
(‘‘downlisting’’) or removal from
protected status (‘‘delisting’’), and
methods for monitoring recovery
progress. Recovery plans also establish
a framework for agencies to coordinate
their recovery efforts and provide
estimates of the cost of implementing
recovery tasks. Revisions of the plan
may be done to address continuing or
new threats to the species, as new
substantive information becomes
available. The recovery outline, draft
recovery plan, final recovery plan, and
any revisions will be available on our
website as they are completed (https://
www.fws.gov/program/endangeredspecies), or from our Austin Ecological
Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Implementation of recovery actions
generally requires the participation of a
broad range of partners, including other
Federal agencies, States, Tribes,
nongovernmental organizations,
businesses, and private landowners.
Examples of recovery actions include
habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of
native vegetation), research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, and
outreach and education. The recovery of
many listed species cannot be
accomplished solely on Federal lands
because their range may occur primarily
or solely on non-Federal lands. To
achieve recovery of these species
requires cooperative conservation efforts
on private, State, and Tribal lands.
If this species is listed, funding for
recovery actions will be available from
a variety of sources, including Federal
budgets, State programs, and cost-share
grants for non-Federal landowners, the
academic community, and
nongovernmental organizations. In
addition, pursuant to section 6 of the
Act, the State of Texas would be eligible
for Federal funds to implement
management actions that promote the
protection or recovery of the big red
sage. Information on our grant programs
that are available to aid species recovery
can be found at: https://www.fws.gov/
service/financial-assistance.
Although the big red sage is only
proposed for listing under the Act at
this time, please let us know if you are
interested in participating in recovery
efforts for this species. Additionally, we
invite you to submit any new
information on this species whenever it
PO 00000
Frm 00213
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
7053
becomes available and any information
you may have for recovery planning
purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Section 7 of the Act is titled,
‘‘Interagency Cooperation,’’ and it
mandates all Federal action agencies to
use their existing authorities to further
the conservation purposes of the Act
and to ensure that their actions are not
likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of listed species or adversely
modify critical habitat. Regulations
implementing section 7 are codified at
50 CFR part 402.
Section 7(a)(2) states that each Federal
action agency shall, in consultation with
the Secretary, ensure that any action
they authorize, fund, or carry out is not
likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of a listed species or result in
the destruction or adverse modification
of designated critical habitat. Each
Federal agency shall review its action at
the earliest possible time to determine
whether it may affect listed species or
critical habitat. If a determination is
made that the action may affect listed
species or critical habitat, formal
consultation is required (50 CFR
402.14(a)), unless the Service concurs in
writing that the action is not likely to
adversely affect listed species or critical
habitat. At the end of a formal
consultation, the Service issues a
biological opinion, containing its
determination of whether the Federal
action is likely to result in jeopardy or
adverse modification.
In contrast, section 7(a)(4) of the Act
requires Federal agencies to confer with
the Service on any action which is
likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any species proposed to be
listed under the Act or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat proposed to be
designated for such species. Although
the conference procedures are required
only when an action is likely to result
in jeopardy or adverse modification,
action agencies may voluntarily confer
with the Service on actions that may
affect species proposed for listing or
critical habitat proposed to be
designated. In the event that the subject
species is listed or the relevant critical
habitat is designated, a conference
opinion may be adopted as a biological
opinion and serve as compliance with
section 7(a)(2) of the Act.
Examples of discretionary actions for
the big red sage that may be subject to
conference and consultation procedures
under section 7 are land management or
other landscape-altering activities on
Federal lands as well as actions on
State, Tribal, local, or private lands that
require a Federal permit (such as a
E:\FR\FM\21JAP1.SGM
21JAP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
7054
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules
permit from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers under section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.)
or a permit from the Service under
section 10 of the Act) or that involve
some other Federal action (such as
funding from the Federal Highway
Administration, Federal Aviation
Administration, or the Federal
Emergency Management Agency).
Federal actions not affecting listed
species or critical habitat—and actions
on State, Tribal, local, or private lands
that are not federally funded,
authorized, or carried out by a Federal
agency—do not require section 7
consultation. Federal agencies should
coordinate with the local Service Field
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT) with any specific questions on
section 7 consultation and conference
requirements.
The Act and its implementing
regulations set forth a series of general
prohibitions and exceptions that apply
to endangered plants. The prohibitions
of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, and the
Service’s implementing regulations
codified at 50 CFR 17.61, make it illegal
for any person subject to the jurisdiction
of the United States to commit, to
attempt to commit, to solicit another to
commit or to cause to be committed any
of the following with an endangered
plant: (1) import to, or export from, the
United States; (2) remove and reduce to
possession from areas under Federal
jurisdiction; maliciously damage or
destroy on any such area; or remove,
cut, dig up, or damage or destroy on any
other area in knowing violation of any
law or regulation of any State or in the
course of any violation of a State
criminal trespass law; (3) deliver,
receive, carry, transport, or ship in
interstate or foreign commerce, by any
means whatsoever and in the course of
a commercial activity; or (4) sell or offer
for sale in interstate or foreign
commerce. Certain exceptions to these
prohibitions apply to employees or
agents of the Service, other Federal land
management agencies, and State
conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out
otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered plants under
certain circumstances. Service
regulations governing permits for
endangered plants are codified at 50
CFR 17.62, and general Service
permitting regulations are codified at 50
CFR part 13. With regard to endangered
plants, a permit may be issued for
scientific purposes or for enhancing the
propagation or survival of the species.
The statute also contains certain
exemptions from the prohibitions,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Jan 18, 2025
Jkt 265001
which are found in sections 9 and 10 of
the Act.
II. Critical Habitat
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3
of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the
geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in
accordance with the Act, on which are
found those physical or biological
features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the
species, and
(b) Which may require special
management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are
essential for the conservation of the
species.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02
define the geographical area occupied
by the species as an area that may
generally be delineated around species’
occurrences, as determined by the
Secretary (i.e., range). Such areas may
include those areas used throughout all
or part of the species’ life cycle, even if
not used on a regular basis (e.g.,
migratory corridors, seasonal habitats,
and habitats used periodically, but not
solely by vagrant individuals).
Conservation, as defined under
section 3 of the Act, means to use and
the use of all methods and procedures
that are necessary to bring an
endangered or threatened species to the
point at which the measures provided
pursuant to the Act are no longer
necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited
to, all activities associated with
scientific resources management such as
research, census, law enforcement,
habitat acquisition and maintenance,
propagation, live trapping, and
transplantation, and, in the
extraordinary case where population
pressures within a given ecosystem
cannot be otherwise relieved, may
include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection
under section 7 of the Act through the
requirement that each Federal action
agency ensure, in consultation with the
Service, that any action they authorize,
fund, or carry out is not likely to result
in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical
habitat. The designation of critical
habitat does not affect land ownership
or establish a refuge, wilderness,
reserve, preserve, or other conservation
area. Such designation also does not
PO 00000
Frm 00214
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
allow the government or public to
access private lands. Such designation
does not require implementation of
restoration, recovery, or enhancement
measures by non-Federal landowners.
Rather, designation requires that, where
a landowner requests Federal agency
funding or authorization for an action
that may affect an area designated as
critical habitat, the Federal agency
consult with the Service under section
7(a)(2) of the Act. If the action may
affect the listed species itself (such as
for occupied critical habitat), the
Federal agency would have already been
required to consult with the Service
even absent the designation because of
the requirement to ensure that the
action is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the species. Even
if the Service were to conclude after
consultation that the proposed activity
is likely to result in destruction or
adverse modification of the critical
habitat, the Federal action agency and
the landowner are not required to
abandon the proposed activity, or to
restore or recover the species; instead,
they must implement ‘‘reasonable and
prudent alternatives’’ to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act’s
definition of critical habitat, areas
within the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time it was listed
are included in a critical habitat
designation if they contain physical or
biological features (1) which are
essential to the conservation of the
species and (2) which may require
special management considerations or
protection. For these areas, critical
habitat designations identify, to the
extent known using the best scientific
data available, those physical or
biological features that are essential to
the conservation of the species (such as
space, food, cover, and protected
habitat).
Under the second prong of the Act’s
definition of critical habitat, we can
designate critical habitat in areas
outside the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time it is listed,
upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the
species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we
designate critical habitat on the basis of
the best scientific data available.
Further, our Policy on Information
Standards Under the Endangered
Species Act (published in the Federal
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)),
the Information Quality Act (section 515
of the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act for
Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R.
E:\FR\FM\21JAP1.SGM
21JAP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules
5658)), and our associated Information
Quality Guidelines provide criteria,
establish procedures, and provide
guidance to ensure that our decisions
are based on the best scientific data
available. They require our biologists, to
the extent consistent with the Act and
with the use of the best scientific data
available, to use primary and original
sources of information as the basis for
recommendations to designate critical
habitat.
When we are determining which areas
should be designated as critical habitat,
our primary source of information is
generally the information from the SSA
report and information developed
during the listing process for the
species. Additional information sources
may include any generalized
conservation strategy, criteria, or outline
that may have been developed for the
species; the recovery plan for the
species; articles in peer-reviewed
journals; conservation plans developed
by States and counties; scientific status
surveys and studies; biological
assessments; other unpublished
materials; or experts’ opinions or
personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may
move from one area to another over
time. We recognize that critical habitat
designated at a particular point in time
may not include all of the habitat areas
that we may later determine are
necessary for the recovery of the
species. For these reasons, a critical
habitat designation does not signal that
habitat outside the designated area is
unimportant or may not be needed for
recovery of the species. Areas that are
important to the conservation of the
species, both inside and outside the
critical habitat designation, will
continue to be subject to: (1)
Conservation actions implemented
under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2)
regulatory protections afforded by the
requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to ensure their
actions are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any endangered
or threatened species; and (3) the
prohibitions found in section 9 of the
Act. Federally funded or permitted
projects affecting listed species outside
their designated critical habitat areas
may still result in jeopardy findings in
some cases. These protections and
conservation tools will continue to
contribute to recovery of the species.
Similarly, critical habitat designations
made on the basis of the best available
information at the time of designation
will not control the direction and
substance of future recovery plans,
habitat conservation plans, or other
species conservation planning efforts if
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Jan 18, 2025
Jkt 265001
new information available at the time of
those planning efforts calls for a
different outcome.
Prudency Determination
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as
amended, and implementing regulations
(50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the
maximum extent prudent and
determinable, the Secretary shall
designate critical habitat at the time the
species is determined to be an
endangered species or a threatened
species. Our regulations (50 CFR
424.12(a)(1)) state that designation of
critical habitat may not be prudent in
circumstances such as, but not limited
to, the following:
(i) The species is threatened by taking
or other human activity and
identification of critical habitat can be
expected to increase the degree of such
threat to the species;
(ii) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of a species’ habitat or range
is not a threat to the species;
(iii) Areas within the jurisdiction of
the United States provide no more than
negligible conservation value, if any, for
a species occurring primarily outside
the jurisdiction of the United States; or
(iv) No areas meet the definition of
critical habitat.
As discussed above, big red sage is
threatened by collection and
inappropriate propagation, and
identification of critical habitat can be
expected to increase the degree of these
threats to the species. Because of this,
we have determined that designation of
critical habitat is not prudent. We reach
this conclusion largely because of the
pervasive threat of collection (Factor B).
The threat of collection potentially
imperils all populations whose
geographic locations are publicized and
accessible to the public. Collection
results in direct mortality when whole
plants are removed from wild sites, and
seed collection from wild populations
for propagation can reduce recruitment
of new individuals and contribute to the
decline of those populations. What
remains is a very small number of
isolated fragments of former
populations, none of which have viable
population sizes. Designation of critical
habitat would publicize locations of the
big red sage that are not currently
publicized, which puts those
populations at risk for collection and
thus extirpation. Designation of critical
habitat would also not provide any
additional conservation benefit to the
species because it does not establish
specific land management standards or
prescriptions and only prohibits Federal
agencies from carrying out, funding, or
PO 00000
Frm 00215
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
7055
authorizing actions that would destroy
or adversely modify critical habitat,
whereas big red sage occurs almost
entirely on private land. Therefore, a
designation of critical habitat would not
be advantageous for this species. Since
we have determined that the big red
sage is threatened by taking or other
human activity and identification of
critical habitat can be expected to
increase the degree of such threat to the
species, in accordance with 50 CFR
424.12(a)(1), we determine that
designation of critical habitat is not
prudent for the big red sage.
Required Determinations
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders
(E.O.s) 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 (ANCs) on a
government-to-government basis. In
accordance with Secretary’s Order 3206
of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal
Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust
E:\FR\FM\21JAP1.SGM
21JAP1
7056
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules
Responsibilities, and the Endangered
Species Act), we readily acknowledge
our responsibilities to work directly
with Tribes in developing programs for
healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that
Tribal lands are not subject to the same
controls as Federal public lands, to
remain sensitive to Indian culture, and
to make information available to Tribes.
We have determined that the big red
sage does not occur on Tribal lands, so
no Tribes would be affected if we list
the species.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in
this rulemaking is available on the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov
and upon request from the Austin
Scientific name
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this proposed
rule are the staff members of the Fish
and Wildlife Service’s Species
Assessment Team and the Austin
Ecological Services Field Office.
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:
Common name
Where listed
PART 17—ENDANGERED AND
THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
1. The authority citation for part 17
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531–
1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise
noted.
2. In § 17.12, in paragraph (h), amend
the List of Endangered and Threatened
Plants by adding an entry for ‘‘Salvia
pentstemonoides’’ in alphabetical order
under FLOWERING PLANTS to read as
follows:
■
§ 17.12
*
Endangered and threatened plants.
*
*
(h) * * *
Status
*
*
Listing citations and applicable rules
FLOWERING PLANTS
*
*
*
Salvia pentstemonoides ....... big red sage ........................
*
*
*
Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2025–01117 Filed 1–17–25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 20
[Docket No. FWS–HQ–MB–2024–0127;
FXMB1231099BPP0–245–FF09M32000]
RIN 1018–BH65
Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed
2025–26 Migratory Game Bird Hunting
Regulations (Preliminary)
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service or we) proposes to
establish hunting regulations for certain
migratory game birds for the 2025–26
hunting season. Through an annual
rulemaking process, we prescribe
outside limits (which we refer to as
frameworks) within which States may
select hunting seasons. This proposed
rule provides the regulatory schedule,
describes the proposed regulatory
alternatives for the 2025–26 general
duck seasons, and provides preliminary
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:06 Jan 18, 2025
*
Wherever found ..................
Jkt 265001
*
*
E
*
proposals that vary from the 2024–25
hunting season regulations. Migratory
bird hunting seasons provide
opportunities for recreation and
sustenance; aid Federal, State, and
Tribal governments in the management
of migratory game birds; and permit
harvests at levels compatible with
migratory game bird population status
and habitat conditions.
DATES: Comments: You may comment
on the general duck season regulatory
alternatives, the process for authorizing
annual hunting seasons, and other
preliminary proposals for the 2025–26
season until February 20, 2025.
ADDRESSES: Comments: You may submit
comments on the proposals by one of
the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments
on Docket No. FWS–HQ–MB–2024–
0127.
• U.S. mail: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS–HQ–MB–2024–
0127; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
MS: PRB/3W; 5275 Leesburg Pike; Falls
Church, VA 22041–3803.
We will not accept emailed or faxed
comments. We will post all comments
on https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that your entire
submission—including any personal
identifying information—will be posted
PO 00000
Frm 00216
Fmt 4702
*
*
[Federal Register citation when published as a final rule].
Sfmt 4702
*
*
on the website. See Public Comments,
below, for more information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jerome Ford, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Department of the Interior,
(703) 358–2606; jerome_ford@fws.gov.
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. For a
summary of the proposed rule, please
see the ‘‘rule summary document’’ in
docket FWS–HQ–MB–2024–0127 on
https://www.regulations.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Process for Establishing Annual
Migratory Game Bird Hunting
Regulations
Background
Migratory game birds are those bird
species so designated in conventions
between the United States and several
foreign nations for the protection and
management of these birds. Under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; 16
U.S.C. 703–712), the Secretary of the
Interior is authorized to determine when
‘‘hunting, taking, capture, killing,
E:\FR\FM\21JAP1.SGM
21JAP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 12 (Tuesday, January 21, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7043-7056]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-01117]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2024-0083; FXES1111090FEDR-256-FF09E21000]
RIN 1018-BG16
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species
Status for Big Red Sage
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
list the big red sage (Salvia pentstemonoides), a plant species from
central Texas, as an endangered species under the Endangered Species
Act of
[[Page 7044]]
1973, as amended (Act). This determination also serves as our 12-month
finding on a petition to list the big red sage. After a review of the
best available scientific and commercial information, we find that
listing the species is warranted. If we finalize this rule as proposed,
it would add this species to the List of Endangered and Threatened
Plants and extend the Act's protections to the species. We have
determined that designating critical habitat for the big red sage is
not prudent.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
March 24, 2025. 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 March 7, 2025.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R2-ES-2024-0083,
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the
Search button. On the resulting page, in the 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-R2-ES-2024-0083, 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 https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
Availability of supporting materials: Supporting materials, such as
the species status assessment report, are available on the Service's
website at https://www.fws.gov/office/austin-ecological-services, at
https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2024-0083, or both.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Myers, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Austin Ecological Services Field Office,
1505 Ferguson Lane, Austin, TX 78754; telephone 512-937-7371.
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-R2-ES-2024-0083 on https://www.regulations.gov for a document that summarizes this proposed rule.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.), a species warrants listing if it 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). If we determine that a
species warrants listing, we must list the species promptly and
designate the species' critical habitat to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable. We have determined that the big red sage meets the
Act's definition of an endangered species; therefore, we are proposing
to list it as such. Listing a species as an endangered or threatened
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. We propose to list the big red sage as an
endangered species under the Act.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a
species is an endangered or 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. We have determined that big red sage is endangered
due to the following threats: herbivory (Factor C), collection and
inappropriate propagation (Factor B), land use changes (Factor A), and
effects from climate change such as flash floods and erosion (Factor
E).
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the Secretary of the Interior
(Secretary), to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, to
designate critical habitat concurrent with listing. We have determined
that designating critical habitat for big red sage is not prudent
because one of the main drivers of the species' status is direct
mortality and loss of genetic integrity resulting from the collection
of seeds and entire plants from wild populations (Factor B). The threat
of collection potentially imperils all populations whose geographic
locations are publicized and accessible to the public. Since we have
determined that the species is threatened by taking or other human
activity and identification of critical habitat can be expected to
increase the degree of such threat to the species, we determine that
designation of critical habitat is not prudent for the species.
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 governmental agencies, Native
American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other
interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek
comments concerning:
(1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
(a) Biological or ecological requirements of the species, including
habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns
and the locations of any additional populations of this species;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and
projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its
habitat, or both.
(2) Threats and conservation actions affecting the species,
including:
(a) Factors that may be affecting the continued existence of the
species, which may include habitat modification or destruction,
overutilization, disease, predation, the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms, or other natural or manmade factors;
(b) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any threats (or lack thereof) to this species; and
(c) Existing regulations or conservation actions that may be
addressing threats to this species.
(3) Additional information concerning the historical and current
status of this species.
(4) Information regarding our determination that designating
critical
[[Page 7045]]
habitat for the big red sage is not prudent.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or
opposition to, the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, 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 or a threatened species must be made solely on the basis of
the best scientific and commercial data available, and section 4(b)(2)
of the Act directs that the Secretary shall designate critical habitat
on the basis of the best scientific 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 https://www.regulations.gov, 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 https://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov.
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. Based
on the new information we receive (and, if relevant, any comments on
that new information), we may conclude that the species is threatened
instead of endangered, or we may conclude that the species does not
warrant listing as either an endangered species or a threatened
species. In our final rule, 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 virtual public hearings is
consistent with our regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3).
Previous Federal Actions
On June 18, 2007, Forest Guardians (now Wild Earth Guardians)
petitioned the Service to list 475 species in the southwestern United
States, including big red sage, as endangered or threatened species
under the Act. On December 16, 2009, the Service published in the
Federal Register (74 FR 66866) a partial 90-day petition finding that
the petition provided substantial information indicating that the big
red sage may warrant listing under the Act. This document constitutes
the 12-month finding on the petition to list the big red sage under the
Act.
Peer Review
A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for
the big red sage. 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 big red sage.
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 in
listing actions under the Act (https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peer-review-policy-directors-memo-2016-08-22.pdf), we
solicited independent scientific review of the information contained in
the big red sage SSA report. We sent the SSA report to four independent
peer reviewers and received three responses. Results of this structured
peer review process can be found at https://www.regulations.gov. 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 we
received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new
information regarding the contents of the SSA report. The peer
reviewers generally concurred with our methods and conclusions, and
provided additional information, clarifications, and suggestions,
including clarifications in terminology and discussions of genetics and
hydrology, and other editorial suggestions. Otherwise, no substantive
changes to our analysis and conclusions within the SSA report were
deemed necessary, and peer reviewer comments are addressed in version
1.1 of the SSA report.
I. Proposed Listing Determination
Background
A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of big
red sage is presented in the SSA report (version 1.1; Service 2023, pp.
2-11).
Big red sage is a perennial herbaceous plant in the mint family
(Lamiaceae) that occurs along streams and narrow ravines in the Edwards
Plateau of central Texas. The historical range of the species includes
Bandera, Bexar, Comal, Gillespie, Kendall, Kerr, Real, Uvalde, and
Wilson Counties. Most big red sage plants occur on bluffs, ledges, and
slopes along watercourses and ravines where groundwater slowly seeps
through limestone to the surface.
Its long, crimson flowers with purplish bases adorn 5-foot-tall
stalks that arise from rosettes of shiny, dark green leaves (Service
2023, p. 2). Big red sage flowers opportunistically from May through
November in response to rainfall and the persistence of soil moisture
(Service 2023, p. 6). The flowers are specifically pollinated by
hummingbirds (Wester 2007, pp. 40, 72; Cibolo Center for Conservation
2021, p. 4); black-chinned hummingbirds (Archilochus alexandri) are the
most abundant species throughout the range and flowering period of the
big red sage (Service 2023, p. 8). Hummingbirds may forage within
discrete territories they establish and defend around concentrated
nectar sources; alternatively, they may also forage in a more dispersed
pattern along traplines, in which rewarding nectar sources are
[[Page 7046]]
visited repeatedly in a predictable sequence (Tello-Ramos et al. 2015,
pp. 812-813). Trapline foraging behavior has been documented among
black-chinned hummingbirds (Arizmendi and Ornelas 1990, p. 177). Based
on the trapline forage range of other hummingbird species (Gill 1988,
entire), we estimate that black-chinned hummingbirds foraging along
consistent, regular routes may cross-pollinate individuals of big red
sage that are separated by as much as 0.5 to 1.0 kilometers (km) (0.3
to 0.6 miles (mi)), and thus are important vectors for the species'
gene flow. However, the species' fecundity is low, and small, inbred
populations produce few viable seeds (Service 2023, p. 9). Individual
plants can live at least 10 years, and the rootstocks may branch to
form multiple rosettes that appear to be separate individuals;
therefore, the effective population sizes may be less than the numbers
of individuals counted in censuses (Service 2023, pp. 9-10).
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department's (TPWD) Texas Natural
Diversity Database (TXNDD) maintains geographic and population data of
plant and animal species of conservation concern in Texas. Data for
each species are organized by standard geographical units for
populations and habitats called ``source features'' (SFs) and ``element
occurrences'' (EOs). SFs and EOs are geographic locations where a
species has been recorded one or more times. They may be displayed as
points, lines, or polygons buffered by their estimated geographic
precision. SFs may be combined into a single E.O. if they are separated
by less than 1 km (0.6 mi) in the wild (NatureServe 2002, p. 26).
Therefore, each E.O. may contain one or more SFs. For the big red sage
and other plant species of conservation concern, we use the E.O.
standard as the unit of analysis because it ensures consistency among
all the partners concerned with the conservation and management of a
species, and this method involves rigorous scientific investigations
spanning many years. We use numbers to identify the EOs for the big red
sage, and all EOs are associated with unique identifiers in the TXNDD
(Service 2023, pp. 26-27). Big red sage has been documented at 18 EOs
(see table 1, below). Please refer to the SSA report for a full list of
EOs and their respective SFs for the big red sage (Service 2023, pp.
26-27).
Table 1--Summary of the EOs of Big Red Sage
[TXNDD ranks each EO as historical (H) or extant (E). Those marked as historical may not have population
estimates.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most recent
EO No. Site name County TXNDD rank population Year of most
estimate recent survey
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............... Barron Creek....... Kendall.................. H .............. ...............
2............... Guadalupe River at Kerr..................... H 50 1894
Kerrville.
3............... Verde Creek south Bandera/Kerr............. H .............. ...............
of Kerrville.
4............... Turtle Creek south Kerr..................... E 0 2013
of Kerrville.
5............... Cibolo Creek near Kendall.................. E 170 2013
Boerne.
7............... Sutherland Springs. Wilson................... H .............. ...............
8............... Frio Waterhole..... Kerr..................... H .............. ...............
10.............. Confluence of Bear Gillespie................ E 0 2013
Creek and
Pedernales River.
11.............. Can Creek and Hale Bandera/Real............. E 4 2013
Hollow at Lost
Maples State
Natural Area.
14.............. Frederick Creek at Kendall.................. E 401 2013
Interstate 10.
15.............. Big Joshua Creek... Kendall.................. E 0 2013
16.............. Wilson Hollow...... Real..................... E 2 1991
19.............. Comanche Springs on Bexar.................... H .............. ...............
Salado Creek.
20.............. North Fork Kerr..................... E 8 2016
Guadalupe River
above Farm to
Market Road 1340.
21.............. Blue Hole.......... Real..................... E 15 2018
22.............. Pedernales River at Gillespie................ E 0 2013
Friedrich Road.
23.............. South Grape Creek Gillespie................ E 0 2013
east of Luckenbach.
24.............. Canyon near Kendall.................. E 54 2013
Frederick Creek.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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
[[Page 7047]]
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 Act's 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 https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/uploads/M-37021.pdf).
The foreseeable future extends as far into the future as the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (hereafter,
the Services) 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 available data 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 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 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 listing as an endangered
or threatened species under the Act. 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 big red sage 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, pathogens). 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 the 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' responses to positive and negative
environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout all of these
stages, we used the best available information 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-R2-
ES-2024-0083 on https://www.regulations.gov.
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. For the big red sage to
maintain viability, its populations must be highly resilient with
sufficient redundancy and representation. Several factors influence the
resiliency of big red sage populations, including: (1) herbivory, (2)
land use changes, (3) collection and inappropriate propagation (i.e.,
breeding in captivity using closely related wild-sourced individuals
that results in inbreeding and decreased genetic diversity), and (4)
effects from climate change. These resiliency factors and habitat
elements are discussed in detail in the SSA report (Service 2023,
entire) and are summarized here.
Species Needs
Soil Moisture
Big red sage growth and flowering require the maintenance of soil
moisture through rainfall and/or seepage through fissures and cavities
in the limestone substrate. Flowering occurs opportunistically from May
through November in response to rainfall and the presence of soil
moisture (Service 2023, p. 6). Big red sage individuals establish on
bluffs, ledges, and slopes along watercourses (including first-order
streams) where soil moisture is relatively persistent (Correll and
Johnston 1978, p. 1368; Pasztor 2004, p. 1; Poole et al. 2007, p. 437).
Big red sage populations most often occur within 165 feet (50 meters)
of watercourses and where slopes are greater than 25 percent (Taylor
and O'Kennon 2013, pp. 3-5). The species is endemic to the riparian
ravines in the Edwards Plateau, and it occurs in specific positions
where intermittent seepage occurs. Additionally, portions of EOs appear
to obtain moisture from a major aquifer, the Edwards-Trinity or
Trinity, at least when aquifer levels are high (Service 2023, pp. 37-
38).
Minimum Viable Population
Highly resilient populations of big red sage must also have stable
or increasing demographic trends over time. This means that recruitment
of new individuals is at least as great as the mortality rate, and
populations must be large enough to have a high probability of
surviving a prescribed period of time. Species that have more
populations distributed over a broader geographic
[[Page 7048]]
range have a greater chance of surviving catastrophic events (Shaffer
and Stein 2000, pp. 308-310). Species or populations are highly
resilient when the probability of persisting 100 years is greater than
90 percent (Mace and Lande 1991, p. 151). This metric of population
resilience is called minimum viable population (MVP) (Pavlik 1996, p.
137). We estimate that highly resilient populations have an MVP of at
least 1,600 individuals of reproductive age (Service 2023, pp. 32-33).
MVP for a species varies based on different traits of that species,
including, but not limited to, longevity (i.e., perennial vs. annual),
growth form (i.e., woody vs. herbaceous), fecundity, and longevity of
seed viability. We determined that the MVP of 1,600 individuals for big
red sage based on the specific traits of big red sage, which fall in
the moderate range of several of these categories (Pavlik 1996, p.
137). For example, big red sage is perennial, occurs in old-growth
vegetation, plants may produce a moderate number of ramets (physically
separate but genetically identical individuals) that branch off the
original root system, it is herbaceous, has low fecundity, individual
survivorship is low, and environmental variation is high (Service 2024,
p. 33). Therefore, populations require a moderately high MVP to persist
for 100 years.
Individual and Population Connectivity
Small, reproductively isolated populations are susceptible to the
loss of genetic diversity, to genetic drift, and to inbreeding (Barrett
and Kohn 1991, pp. 3-30). Additionally, the loss of genetic diversity
may reduce the ability of a species or population to resist pathogens
and parasites, to adapt to changing environmental conditions, or to
colonize new habitats (Service 2023, p. 34). Conversely, populations
that pass through a genetic bottleneck may subsequently benefit through
the elimination of harmful alleles. Nevertheless, the net result of the
loss of genetic diversity is likely to be a loss of fitness and lower
chance of survival of populations and of the species.
Additionally, the seeds of big red sage have a very limited
dispersal range (Service 2023, p. 34). The forage range for the black-
chinned hummingbird, an important pollinator of big red sage,
determines the typical limits of gene flow between individuals (Service
2023, p. 34). We estimate that this limit may be from 0.5 to 1.0 km
(0.3 to 0.6 mi) (Service 2023, p. 34). When the limits of gene flow are
unknown, we apply the TXNDD's use of the NatureServe default minimum
separation distance of 1.0 km (0.6 mi) to delineate populations
(NatureServe 2020, p. 4). Therefore, big red sage populations must have
sufficient numbers of individuals and populations that are not too
closely related or too widely dispersed for effective pollination,
outcrossing, and seed production.
Risk Factors for Big Red Sage
We reviewed the potential risk factors (i.e., threats, stressors)
that could be currently affecting the big red sage. In this proposed
rule, we will discuss only those factors in detail that could
meaningfully impact the status of the species. The primary risk factors
(i.e., threats) affecting the status of big red sage are herbivory
(Factor C), collection and inappropriate propagation (Factor B), land
use changes (Factor A), and effects from climate change (Factor E).
Herbivory
Big red sage is palatable to browsing herbivores, such as white-
tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), introduced ungulates, and goats
(Capra hircus). Within large portions of the range of the big red sage,
the numbers of white-tailed deer are about three times greater than the
recommended sustainable deer population levels (Morrow 2020, p. 8;
Armstrong and Young 2000, p. 20; Service 2023, p. 36). In addition to
native white-tailed deer, several species of nonnative ungulate game
animals have been introduced in the Edwards Plateau (Mungall and
Sheffield 1994, pp. 188-194). Some introduced ungulates have escaped
and established large breeding populations in the wild, compounding the
browsing pressure from native white-tailed deer. Additionally, ranchers
also introduced large numbers of goats in Real County and elsewhere in
the Edwards Plateau beginning in the early 20th century (Minton 2019,
unpaginated). Since goats are voracious browsers and nimble scalers of
rocky slopes, large numbers of goats likely had a severe impact on
populations of big red sage before conservationists began searching for
the species.
Browsing from unsustainably large populations of deer has
eradicated big red sage from all known habitats except areas that are
inaccessible to deer, such as bluffs and steep slopes (Taylor and
O'Kennon 2013, p. 10). Herbivory has already resulted in the decline of
two of the seven remaining EOs of big red sage (EOs 11 and 14) (Ward
2010, p. 2). Therefore, herbivory, and thus mortality of individual
plants, by native and introduced ungulates has severely affected all
populations throughout the species' range and is a continuing severe
threat throughout the range.
Land Use Changes
Current rates of human population growth are stable or decreasing
in Real, Bandera, and Uvalde Counties; increasing moderately in Kerr
and Gillespie Counties; and increasing rapidly in Kendall County
(Service 2023, pp. 83-84). Although bluffs and steep slopes are not
suitable for most forms of land development, many big red sage
populations occur near watercourses where human activities are
concentrated (Service 2023, p. 30). Construction and maintenance of
houses, roads, bridges, and other recreational land uses may impact
these populations of big red sage.
All or portions of four EOs (2, 10, 19, 22) have been lost to
development or land use changes that altered the native plant community
(Taylor and O'Kennon 2013, pp. 6, 8, 9; TXNDD 2019, pp. 3, 4, 15, 16,
35, 36, 43). In these cases, some individuals were likely to have been
destroyed when habitats were converted to buildings or pavement, or
when nonnative vegetation was introduced in developed areas, while
others may have died as a result of other drastic changes to the
habitat.
In addition to losses that are directly attributable to urban and
residential development, an increase in the amount of impermeable
surfaces or a loss of vegetative cover may reduce the infiltration of
water into the ground; this in turn may reduce the availability and
constancy of seep moisture that sustains big red sage individuals and
populations. The drying of these seepage areas may impact big red sage
populations because of the reduction of necessary soil moisture for
sustaining plant and population growth (Taylor and O'Kennon 2013, pp.
10-11). Three of the remaining seven EOs (EOs 5, 14, and 24) are
currently at the greatest risk to development. Based on the extent of
land use changes to known populations and current rates of human
population growth in the encompassing counties, we estimate that this
threat currently affects 25 percent of all extant populations.
Therefore, land use changes are a continuing, potentially severe threat
throughout the species' range.
Collection From the Wild and the Loss of Genetic Integrity Due to
Inappropriate Propagation
Big red sage is used in landscapes and pollinator gardens, both
within its native range in Texas as well as throughout North America
and elsewhere. It has been propagated and
[[Page 7049]]
sold by several commercial nurseries since 1986 (Enquist 1987, p. 5).
Seeds and entire plants have been collected from the wild for
landscaping and commercial propagation from at least two EOs (14 and
20) that are accessible to the public (Collier 1989, pp. 1-2; Taylor
and O'Kennon 2013, p. 11). E.O. 14, the source of at least one
propagated population (Hoban and Garner 2019, p. 1), was widely known
and easily accessible to the public. In 1988, the State Department of
Highways and Public Transportation placed signs at E.O. 14 stating,
``Non Mowing Area,'' ``Wildflower Research Area,'' and ``Property of
State of Texas, Penalty for Private Use.'' On June 27, 1989, State
Department of Highways and Public Transportation maintenance personnel
found the signs pulled out of the ground with cut flowering stems of
the big red sage placed on top of them, with evidence of digging and
cutting of the plants (Collier 1989, pp. 1-2). Therefore, there is
confirmation that collection contributed to the decline of that
population, along with other possible causes, including a major flood,
competition from invasive plants, and ungulate browsing (Service 2023,
p. 10). Other EOs, such as 11 and 21, are vulnerable to collection from
the wild; undocumented populations may also have been discovered and
depleted by collectors. Although the habitat of E.O. 11 is intact and
is in high condition, and the site is protected as a State Natural
Area, this population has declined 87 percent over 31 years (Service
2023, pp. 22, 65). This decline can be attributed to illicit collection
because the collection sites have been publicized. However, additional
factors may have also contributed to this decline, including herbivory
by over-abundant white-tailed deer and introduced ungulates, and the
demographic and genetic consequences of small population sizes. Because
collection and sale of the big red sage has been ongoing for decades,
we conclude that collection from wild populations is a potentially
severe, continuing threat to all populations that occur in sites that
are known to and accessible by the public.
Inappropriate propagation is also a threat to big red sage.
Propagation, in general, is a useful tool for plant conservation.
However, there are several potential risks if conducted without regard
for the conservation of a species' genetic integrity. Propagated plant
populations often arise from a very small number of founders collected
from the wild, and propagated populations may lose alleles, and thus
experience a decline in genetic diversity through genetic drift (the
random reduction in frequency of alleles or the complete loss of
alleles). Genetic drift occurs most rapidly when the number of breeding
individuals is small.
Additionally, propagated populations may also experience a decrease
in genetic diversity through deliberate or inadvertent selection.
Selection leads to non-random changes in allele frequencies and non-
random losses of alleles. Deliberate selection occurs when seeds are
selected from plants with specific desirable traits, such as size,
form, or flower color, and are used to propagate subsequent
generations. Inadvertent selection occurs as an unintended consequence
of propagation. For example, growers typically retain only the
individuals that germinate readily and then use those individuals as
future seed sources; consequently, propagated populations frequently
lose the seed dormancy mechanisms that benefit the survival of wild
populations. Each successive propagated generation incrementally
changes the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool, including the
complete loss of alleles. Ultimately, both deliberate and inadvertent
selection lead to plants that are more fit in cultivation but less
likely to persist if transplanted back into the wild (Service 2023, p.
39).
Through propagation, it is possible to create unlimited numbers of
individuals that, once released to the wild, may interbreed with and
overwhelm the much smaller wild populations with a very narrow sample
of the species' original genetic diversity, thus causing the loss of
rare wild genotypes. Release of individuals bred in cultivation may
also introduce genes that reduce fitness (e.g., loss of seed dormancy)
into the wild population, as discussed above. Finally,
horticulturalists and plant collectors may bring big red sage into
proximity with other Salvia species that are geographically separated
in the wild; if these taxa can breed with each other, this could lead
to hybridization. An escape of hybridized Salvia species into the wild
populations could lead to the extinction of the original wild genotype
through interbreeding.
We have no evidence that the progeny of propagated individuals of
big red sage have colonized wild population sites. Nevertheless,
propagated big red sage populations have very low genetic diversity
(Hoban and Garner 2019, p. 4). We conclude that inappropriate
propagation is a potentially severe threat of unknown extent to the
genetic integrity of the remaining wild populations and the species.
Effects From Climate Change
The Summary for Policy Makers in the Sixth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that global surface
temperatures will continue to increase until at least the mid-century
under all emissions scenarios considered; the frequency and intensity
of hot extremes, marine heatwaves, and agricultural and ecological
droughts will increase in some regions; and heavy precipitation events
will become more frequent (IPCC 2021, pp. 16-20). The U.S. Global
Climate Research Program (USGCRP) Fourth National Climate Assessment
reports that average annual temperatures from 1986 to 2016 have
increased in the Southern Great Plains, which includes the range of big
red sage, by 0.42 degrees Celsius ([deg]C) (0.76 degrees Fahrenheit
([deg]F)), compared to the 1901 to 1960 baseline (USGCRP 2017, p. 187).
The frequency of heavy precipitation events in the Southern Great
Plains has increased from 1901 to 2016 and 1948 to 2016 (USGCRP 2017,
pp. 20 -212) and is projected to continue to increase under both
moderate and high emission scenarios.
Because the big red sage only occurs where there is seep moisture
along the slopes and bluffs of canyons and ravines, it requires
relatively persistent soil moisture. Additionally, to evaluate how a
changing climate may affect big red sage, we used the National Climate
Change Viewer to compare past and projected future climate conditions
for the Upper Guadalupe River watershed in Texas. The National Climate
Change Viewer projects a decrease in soil water storage and an increase
in summer evaporative deficit by 2050 to 2074, indicating that soil
moisture will become more limiting to plant growth, and thus will
restrict the big red sage to a smaller amount of suitable habitat
(Service 2023, p. 42). Although climate models do not consistently
project how total rainfall may change, the ongoing trend toward greater
extremes in rainfall will likely increase with rising temperatures. We
expect that mortality will increase and recruitment will decrease
during longer, more severe droughts. Furthermore, the increasing
frequency and intensity of heavy rainfall events will also exacerbate
the threat of flash flooding. Flash floods have already caused
population declines at EOs 5 and 14, and EO 15 was completely destroyed
by a landslide when the bluff above it collapsed, which may have been
caused by flooding along Big Joshua Creek. Flood waters may uproot
individual plants or wash away their substrates, or the plants may be
buried under silt and
[[Page 7050]]
debris (Service 2023, p. 40). Many EOs that occur along watercourses
have individuals established below the high-water level that will
likely be destroyed by a flood event at some point in the future
(Taylor and O'Kennon 2013, p. 10). We conclude that the direct and
indirect effects of climate change and associated flash floods and bank
erosion represent a potentially severe threat to the portions of big
red sage populations that are close to watercourses and below the high-
water level of floods throughout the species' range.
Summary
Several historical and ongoing influences, including herbivory,
land use changes, collection, and inappropriate propagation, may affect
the viability of the big red sage. The most pervasive threats to the
species are herbivory and collection, which have already resulted in
the extirpation and decline of several populations. Additionally,
climate change is expected to exacerbate impacts from all
aforementioned threats.
Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms
TPWD has previously supported two grants that promoted the
conservation of the big red sage. The 2012 Texas Conservation Action
Plan identified a research priority to study the distribution of and
threats to the big red sage. This led to a wildlife conservation grant
to update the species' status (Taylor and O'Kennon 2013, entire). The
TPWD Conservation License Plate Program supported an investigation of
the species' conservation genetics in 2019 (Hoban and Garner 2019, pp.
1-2). This genetic study was conducted at EO 11 located at Lost Maples
State Natural Area, which is protected by TPWD. Although the habitat is
intact and the site is protected as a State Natural Area, this
population has declined 87 percent over 31 years. Factors that may have
contributed to this decline include herbivory by overabundant white-
tailed deer and introduced ungulates, as well as the demographic and
genetic consequences of a small population size. Since the collection
sites have been publicized, it is also possible that illicit collection
may also have contributed to this decline. TPWD is currently supporting
a third project, funded through the Service's cooperative endangered
species conservation fund (see 16 U.S.C. 1535(i)). The objectives of
this project are to seek access to private lands and conduct surveys
for new populations, collect seeds from wild populations, and propagate
seeds of wild populations to increase seed available for reintroduction
and augmentation of populations, scientific research, and seed banking.
One of the largest populations of the big red sage occurs at Cibolo
Bluffs (EO 5), which is owned by Cibolo Center for Conservation and is
monitored annually by volunteers of the Cibolo Center for Conservation
and trustees of Cibolo Preserve. In 2005, there was a big red sage
reintroduction at Cibolo Center for Conservation (formerly Cibolo
Nature Center) from seeds obtained from the Lady Bird Johnson
Wildflower Center and collected from the wild (likely Cibolo Bluffs).
Results from this reintroduction suggest that the big red sage may be
relatively resilient to the wide extremes in annual rainfall that
characterize the Edwards Plateau (Service 2023, p. 46). However, none
of the individuals that were planted outside of exclosures survived,
indicating that herbivory by overabundant white-tailed deer is a severe
threat to the survival of the big red sage. While the protected
individuals declined over time, they also produced large numbers of
seeds, with new big red sage individuals found growing nearby along a
creek in 2013. In summary, this small pilot reintroduction demonstrates
that it is possible to establish new population sources or to augment
existing populations, provided that the sites are protected from white-
tailed deer and other ungulates.
Cumulative Effects
We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of
the scientific information documented in 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.
Species Condition
We used the U.S. Geological Survey's hydrologic unit code watershed
boundaries to delineate four representation areas of the big red sage:
Guadalupe, Cibolo, Frio-Sabinal, and Pedernales. The current condition
of the big red sage considers the risks to the populations previously
and currently. For each EO, we developed and assigned categories for
the species' demographic and habitat conditions to measure population
resiliency of the big red sage. Our analysis was conducted at the EO
level, but some individual SFs may have different conditions than the
EO in which it falls.
Seven EOs (EO numbers 5, 11, 14, 16, 20, 21, and 24) are extant and
seven EOs (EO numbers 2, 4, 10, 15, 19, 22, and 23) are extirpated
(Service 2024, p. 50). There are 4 EOs that were reliably recorded in
the past for which there have been no recent visits, or the exact
geographic location is unknown (EO numbers 1, 3, 7, and 8). We
considered these previously documented populations where we could not
determine if they are currently extant or extirpated as ``non-
contributing'' (i.e., not contributing to the overall viability of the
species), and they are not included in the overall condition assessment
of the species. Therefore, we consider there to be 14 known historical
populations contributing to our understanding of the overall viability
of the species.
We used MVP as the metric to determine the population condition
(i.e., resiliency) for each EO (Pavlik 1996, p. 137). MVP is an
estimate of population size needed for a population to have a high
probability of surviving 100 years, which for the big red sage is 1,600
individuals (Service 2023, p. 33). The estimate of MVP is based only on
numbers of mature individuals (those that have flowered at least once
or are judged capable of flowering) because juveniles that die before
they reproduce do not contribute to the effective population size or
future genetic diversity.
We categorized the population condition of each EO as high,
moderate, low, or extirpated. EOs are in high condition when they have
the estimated MVP of 1,600 mature individuals, meaning the populations
would likely persist for 100 years. Moderate condition is a population
of at least 100 individuals, which is a population size that is likely
to persist for at least 10 years and has the ability to have increased
resiliency through conservation and management. We adopt 10 years as
the threshold for moderate condition because 10 years is the observed
lifespan of an individual and it is long enough for both recruitment
and mortality to occur and for demographic trends to emerge (Taylor
2021, pers. comm.). Low condition is a population size fewer than 100
individuals that is not likely to persist 10 years and is unlikely to
increase resilience without
[[Page 7051]]
augmentation as well as conservation and management.
The evaluation of habitat conditions of the EOs includes the amount
and percent of good and excellent habitat, the presence of gaps between
areas of good or excellent habitat, the proximity of urban and
residential development, and the abundance of forested ravines and
tributaries that connect to the EOs (Service 2023, p. 54). High habitat
condition was categorized by having, on average, abundant potential
habitat, few (if any) significant habitat gaps, low proximity to or
absence of nearby urban and residential development, and abundant
tributary ravines. Moderate habitat condition was categorized by
having, on average, relatively abundant potential habitat, large or
several gaps between suitable habitat areas, some proximity to urban
and residential development, and few forested ravines and tributaries.
Low habitat condition was categorized by having, on average, low
amounts of potential habitat, many or large significant habitat gaps,
large amounts or very nearby urban and residential development, and few
to no nearby forested ravines and tributaries. We categorized the
overall condition of each EO as the lesser of the population condition
and habitat condition (see table 2, below). There are several
populations that were reliably recorded in the past for which there
have been no recent visits, or the exact geographic location is
unknown. We considered these previously documented populations where we
could not determine if they are currently extant or extirpated as
``non-contributing'' (i.e., not contributing to the overall viability
of the species), and they are not included in the overall condition
assessment of the species.
Table 2--Summary of Representation Areas, Population and Habitat Conditions, and Overall Resilience of the EOs
of Big Red Sage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population Overall EO
Representation area Element occurrence condition Habitat condition resilience
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guadalupe or Pedernales......... 1................. Non-Contributing.. Not Determined.... Non-Contributing.
Guadalupe....................... 2................. Extirpated........ Developed......... Extirpated.
Guadalupe....................... 3................. Non-Contributing.. Not Determined.... Non-Contributing.
Guadalupe....................... 4-Upper Turtle Non-Contributing.. High.............. Non-Contributing.
Creek.
Guadalupe....................... 4-Middle Turtle Non-Contributing.. Low............... Non-Contributing.
Creek.
Guadalupe....................... 4-Lower Turtle Extirpated........ Low............... Extirpated.
Creek.
Guadalupe....................... 15................ Extirpated........ Not Determined.... Extirpated.
Guadalupe....................... 20................ Moderate.......... High.............. Moderate.
Unknown......................... 7................. Non-Contributing.. Unknown........... Non-Contributing.
Cibolo.......................... 5-Upstream Cibolo Non-Contributing.. High.............. Non-Contributing.
Creek.
Cibolo.......................... 5-Midstream Cibolo Non-Contributing.. Moderate.......... Non-Contributing.
Creek.
Cibolo.......................... 5-Downstream Moderate.......... High.............. Moderate.
Cibolo Creek.
Cibolo.......................... 14................ Moderate.......... Moderate.......... Moderate.
Cibolo.......................... 24................ Moderate.......... Moderate.......... Moderate.
Frio-Sabinal.................... 8................. Non-Contributing.. High.............. Non-Contributing.
Frio-Sabinal.................... 11................ Low............... High.............. Low.
Frio-Sabinal.................... 16................ Low............... High.............. Low.
Frio-Sabinal.................... 21................ Low............... High.............. Low.
Pedernales...................... 10................ Extirpated/Non- Not Determined.... Extirpated/Non-
Contributing. Contributing.
Pedernales...................... 22................ Extirpated........ Not Determined.... Extirpated.
Pedernales...................... 23................ Extirpated........ Not Determined.... Extirpated.
Headwaters Salado Creek......... 19................ Extirpated........ Developed......... Extirpated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The species' total known populations have declined by 46 percent
since 1988. Twenty-eight percent of known EOs have been completely
extirpated. All known EOs in the Pedernales representation area are
extirpated. The Guadalupe representation area has only one remaining
E.O., which is in moderate condition. The Frio-Sabinal representation
area has three EOs, all of which are in low condition. The Cibolo
representation area has three EOs in moderate condition that are
currently isolated, or nearly isolated, from each other by urban,
residential, and recreational development.
Redundancy for the big red sage is characterized by having
multiple, sufficiently resilient populations distributed across the
spring systems historically occupied by the species for the species to
be able to withstand catastrophic events. Species that have redundant,
sufficiently resilient populations distributed across their historical
ranges are less susceptible to the risk of extinction from catastrophic
events. Of the 14 known historical populations of big red sage, 7 have
become extirpated. Therefore, redundancy has been significantly reduced
from historical levels, making the species more vulnerable to
catastrophic events such as flash floods and prolonged drought.
Representation reflects a species' capacity to adapt to changing
environmental conditions over time and can be characterized by genetic
and ecological diversity within and among populations. We describe
species representation for the big red sage as genetic diversity both
within and among populations. Current populations of big red sage have
very low overall species diversity and small population sizes and are
likely to continue to experience declines in genetic diversity and
increased inbreeding (Hoban and Garner 2019, pp. 3-4). Although the big
red sage has critically low genetic diversity, wild populations
maintain greater genetic diversity than propagated populations (Hoban
and Garner 2019, pp. 3-4). When coupled with small population sizes,
big red sage populations may experience an increased loss in genetic
variation, resulting in a population's reduced ability to survive and
reproduce (i.e., inbreeding depression) (Hoban and Garner 2019, p. 4).
The big red sage occurs only in small, isolated groups of individuals,
which are susceptible to the loss of genetic diversity, to genetic
drift, and to inbreeding (Barrett and
[[Page 7052]]
Kohn 1991, pp. 3-30). This is evident in propagated populations of big
red sage with known low genetic diversity that did not produce viable
seeds (Hoban and Garner 2019, p. 4). Because of the species' low
genetic diversity, its ability to withstand stochastic events and adapt
to changing environmental conditions is reduced.
In summary, of the 14 known historical populations, 7 are
extirpated and 7 are extant. This reduced redundancy makes the species
more susceptible to catastrophic events such as floods and prolonged
drought. Furthermore, of the extant populations, only four populations
are expected to persist at least 10 years and three populations are
likely to become extirpated within 10 years. The remaining populations
are small, are isolated, and have low genetic diversity, making them
less able to withstand stochastic events.
As part of the SSA, we also developed two future condition
scenarios to capture the range of uncertainties regarding future
threats and the projected responses by the big red sage. Because we
determined that the current condition of the big red sage is consistent
with an endangered species (see Determination of the Big Red Sage's
Status, below), we are not presenting the results of the future
scenarios in this proposed rule. Please refer to the SSA report
(Service 2023, pp. 78-98) for the full analysis of future scenarios.
Determination of the Big Red Sage's 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 big red sage has declined from known
historical levels in size and number of populations. Our analysis
revealed several factors that caused this decline and pose a meaningful
risk to the viability of the species. These threats are primarily
related to habitat changes (Factor A), including land use changes;
overutilization (Factor B) by collection and inappropriate propagation;
herbivory (Factor C); and the effects of climate change (Factor E).
Of the 14 known historical populations, 7 are extirpated and 7 are
extant. This decline in number of populations from known historical
levels indicates a reduced level of redundancy, making the big red sage
more vulnerable to catastrophic events such as flash floods. Of the
seven extant populations, only four populations are expected to persist
at least 10 years and three are likely to become extirpated within 10
years. These levels of resiliency of the remaining populations exhibit
a lowered ability of the species to withstand environmental and
demographic stochasticity. Additionally, overall genetic diversity of
the species is low, meaning that the species may not be adequately able
to adapt to both near-term and long-term changes in its physical and
biological environment (i.e., the species may lack adaptive capacity).
The most pervasive threats to the species are herbivory and
collection and inappropriate propagation. Browsing from unsustainably
large populations of deer has eradicated big red sage from all known
habitats except areas that are inaccessible to deer, such as bluffs and
steep slopes (Taylor and O'Kennon 2013, p. 10). Herbivory has already
resulted in the decline of several EOs of big red sage, including EOs
11 and 14 (Ward 2010, p. 2). Seeds and entire plants have been
collected from the wild for landscaping and commercial propagation from
at least two EOs (14 and 20) that are accessible to the public (Collier
1989, pp. 1-2; Taylor and O'Kennon 2013, p. 11). E.O. 14 was widely
known and easily accessible to the public, and collection contributed
to the decline of that population, which remains extant.
These threats, in addition to land use changes and effects from
climate change, have reduced available habitat for the big red sage and
resulted in the direct and indirect destruction of individual plants
and entire populations. All or portions of four EOs have been lost to
development or land use changes where individual plants were likely to
have been destroyed when habitats were converted to buildings or
pavement, or when nonnative vegetation was introduced in developed
areas, while others may have died as a result of other drastic changes
to the habitat (Taylor and O'Kennon 2013, pp. 6, 8, 9; TXNDD 2019, pp.
3, 4, 15, 16, 35, 36, 43). Effects from climate change such as flash
floods have already caused population declines at three EOs, one of
which was completely destroyed. Flood waters may uproot individual
plants or wash away their substrates, or the plants may be buried under
silt and debris (Service 2023, p. 40).
In summary, the big red sage is very susceptible to extirpations
from catastrophic events and has limited adaptive capacity. The number
of known populations has already been reduced from 14 to 7 populations
due to herbivory, collection and inappropriate propagation, land use
changes, and effects from climate change, all of which remain active
threats to existing populations. The species is in danger of extinction
due to the aforementioned threats, which have historically impacted,
and are currently impacting, the species and reducing its viability
across its range. We do not find the species meets the Act's definition
of a threatened species because the species has already shown declines
in the number and resiliency of populations. Half of known populations
have already become extirpated due to the threats mentioned above, and
all remaining populations are at risk due to the same threats. Because
current redundancy is reduced from known historical levels, and
representation is limited due to low genetic diversity, the species is
vulnerable to catastrophic and stochastic events. Thus, after assessing
the best scientific and commercial data available, we determine that
the big red sage is in danger of extinction throughout all of its
range.
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. We have determined that the big red sage is in danger of
extinction throughout all of its range and accordingly did not
undertake an analysis of any significant portion of its range. Because
the big red sage warrants listing as endangered
[[Page 7053]]
throughout all of its range, our determination does not conflict with
the decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 435 F.
Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 2020), because that decision related to significant
portion of the range analyses for species that warrant listing as
threatened, not endangered, throughout all of their range.
Determination of Status
Our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information indicates that the big red sage meets the Act's definition
of an endangered species. Therefore, we propose to list the big red
sage as an endangered species in accordance with sections 3(6) and
4(a)(1) of the Act.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened species under the Act include recognition as a listed
species, planning and implementation of recovery actions, requirements
for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices.
Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, foreign
governments, private organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages
cooperation with the States and other countries and calls for recovery
actions to be carried out for listed species. The protection required
by Federal agencies, including the Service, and the prohibitions
against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of
the Act. Section 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop and
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The goal of this process is to restore listed
species to a point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and
functioning components of their ecosystems.
The recovery planning process begins with development of a recovery
outline made available to the public soon after a final listing
determination. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation
of urgent recovery actions while a recovery plan is being developed.
Recovery teams (composed of species experts, Federal and State
agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders) may be
established to develop and implement recovery plans. The recovery
planning process involves the identification of actions that are
necessary to halt and reverse the species' decline by addressing the
threats to its survival and recovery. The recovery plan identifies
recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for
reclassification from endangered to threatened (``downlisting'') or
removal from protected status (``delisting''), and methods for
monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework
for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates
of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Revisions of the plan may
be done to address continuing or new threats to the species, as new
substantive information becomes available. The recovery outline, draft
recovery plan, final recovery plan, and any revisions will be available
on our website as they are completed (https://www.fws.gov/program/endangered-species), or from our Austin Ecological Services Field
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal
agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses,
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
If this species is listed, funding for recovery actions will be
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State
programs, and cost-share grants for non-Federal landowners, the
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition,
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the State of Texas would be eligible
for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote the
protection or recovery of the big red sage. Information on our grant
programs that are available to aid species recovery can be found at:
https://www.fws.gov/service/financial-assistance.
Although the big red sage is only proposed for listing under the
Act at this time, please let us know if you are interested in
participating in recovery efforts for this species. Additionally, we
invite you to submit any new information on this species whenever it
becomes available and any information you may have for recovery
planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Section 7 of the Act is titled, ``Interagency Cooperation,'' and it
mandates all Federal action agencies to use their existing authorities
to further the conservation purposes of the Act and to ensure that
their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
listed species or adversely modify critical habitat. Regulations
implementing section 7 are codified at 50 CFR part 402.
Section 7(a)(2) states that each Federal action agency shall, in
consultation with the Secretary, ensure that any action they authorize,
fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat. Each Federal agency shall
review its action at the earliest possible time to determine whether it
may affect listed species or critical habitat. If a determination is
made that the action may affect listed species or critical habitat,
formal consultation is required (50 CFR 402.14(a)), unless the Service
concurs in writing that the action is not likely to adversely affect
listed species or critical habitat. At the end of a formal
consultation, the Service issues a biological opinion, containing its
determination of whether the Federal action is likely to result in
jeopardy or adverse modification.
In contrast, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies
to confer with the Service on any action which is likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed under the
Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat proposed to be designated for such species. Although the
conference procedures are required only when an action is likely to
result in jeopardy or adverse modification, action agencies may
voluntarily confer with the Service on actions that may affect species
proposed for listing or critical habitat proposed to be designated. In
the event that the subject species is listed or the relevant critical
habitat is designated, a conference opinion may be adopted as a
biological opinion and serve as compliance with section 7(a)(2) of the
Act.
Examples of discretionary actions for the big red sage that may be
subject to conference and consultation procedures under section 7 are
land management or other landscape-altering activities on Federal lands
as well as actions on State, Tribal, local, or private lands that
require a Federal permit (such as a
[[Page 7054]]
permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service
under section 10 of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action
(such as funding from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal
Aviation Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency).
Federal actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat--and
actions on State, Tribal, local, or private lands that are not
federally funded, authorized, or carried out by a Federal agency--do
not require section 7 consultation. Federal agencies should coordinate
with the local Service Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT) with any specific questions on section 7 consultation and
conference requirements.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered plants.
The prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, and the Service's
implementing regulations codified at 50 CFR 17.61, make it illegal for
any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to commit,
to attempt to commit, to solicit another to commit or to cause to be
committed any of the following with an endangered plant: (1) import to,
or export from, the United States; (2) remove and reduce to possession
from areas under Federal jurisdiction; maliciously damage or destroy on
any such area; or remove, cut, dig up, or damage or destroy on any
other area in knowing violation of any law or regulation of any State
or in the course of any violation of a State criminal trespass law; (3)
deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign
commerce, by any means whatsoever and in the course of a commercial
activity; or (4) sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign
commerce. Certain exceptions to these prohibitions apply to employees
or agents of the Service, other Federal land management agencies, and
State conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered plants under certain circumstances. Service
regulations governing permits for endangered plants are codified at 50
CFR 17.62, and general Service permitting regulations are codified at
50 CFR part 13. With regard to endangered plants, a permit may be
issued for scientific purposes or for enhancing the propagation or
survival of the species. The statute also contains certain exemptions
from the prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
II. Critical Habitat
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area
occupied by the species as an area that may generally be delineated
around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary (i.e.,
range). Such areas may include those areas used throughout all or part
of the species' life cycle, even if not used on a regular basis (e.g.,
migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats used periodically,
but not solely by vagrant individuals).
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the requirement that each Federal action agency ensure, in
consultation with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or
carry out is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat. The designation of
critical habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge,
wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such
designation also does not allow the government or public to access
private lands. Such designation does not require implementation of
restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by non-Federal
landowners. Rather, designation requires that, where a landowner
requests Federal agency funding or authorization for an action that may
affect an area designated as critical habitat, the Federal agency
consult with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. If the
action may affect the listed species itself (such as for occupied
critical habitat), the Federal agency would have already been required
to consult with the Service even absent the designation because of the
requirement to ensure that the action is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the species. Even if the Service were to
conclude after consultation that the proposed activity is likely to
result in destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat,
the Federal action agency and the landowner are not required to abandon
the proposed activity, or to restore or recover the species; instead,
they must implement ``reasonable and prudent alternatives'' to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best
scientific data available, those physical or biological features that
are essential to the conservation of the species (such as space, food,
cover, and protected habitat).
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on
Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R.
[[Page 7055]]
5658)), and our associated Information Quality Guidelines provide
criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our
decisions are based on the best scientific data available. They require
our biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use
of the best scientific data available, to use primary and original
sources of information as the basis for recommendations to designate
critical habitat.
When we are determining which areas should be designated as
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the
information from the SSA report and information developed during the
listing process for the species. Additional information sources may
include any generalized conservation strategy, criteria, or outline
that may have been developed for the species; the recovery plan for the
species; articles in peer-reviewed journals; conservation plans
developed by States and counties; scientific status surveys and
studies; biological assessments; other unpublished materials; or
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species.
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) regulatory
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species; and (3) the prohibitions found in section 9 of the Act.
Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside
their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy
findings in some cases. These protections and conservation tools will
continue to contribute to recovery of the species. Similarly, critical
habitat designations made on the basis of the best available
information at the time of designation will not control the direction
and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans, or
other species conservation planning efforts if new information
available at the time of those planning efforts calls for a different
outcome.
Prudency Determination
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable, the Secretary shall designate critical habitat at the
time the species is determined to be an endangered species or a
threatened species. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that
designation of critical habitat may not be prudent in circumstances
such as, but not limited to, the following:
(i) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the
degree of such threat to the species;
(ii) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the
species;
(iii) Areas within the jurisdiction of the United States provide no
more than negligible conservation value, if any, for a species
occurring primarily outside the jurisdiction of the United States; or
(iv) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat.
As discussed above, big red sage is threatened by collection and
inappropriate propagation, and identification of critical habitat can
be expected to increase the degree of these threats to the species.
Because of this, we have determined that designation of critical
habitat is not prudent. We reach this conclusion largely because of the
pervasive threat of collection (Factor B). The threat of collection
potentially imperils all populations whose geographic locations are
publicized and accessible to the public. Collection results in direct
mortality when whole plants are removed from wild sites, and seed
collection from wild populations for propagation can reduce recruitment
of new individuals and contribute to the decline of those populations.
What remains is a very small number of isolated fragments of former
populations, none of which have viable population sizes. Designation of
critical habitat would publicize locations of the big red sage that are
not currently publicized, which puts those populations at risk for
collection and thus extirpation. Designation of critical habitat would
also not provide any additional conservation benefit to the species
because it does not establish specific land management standards or
prescriptions and only prohibits Federal agencies from carrying out,
funding, or authorizing actions that would destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat, whereas big red sage occurs almost entirely on
private land. Therefore, a designation of critical habitat would not be
advantageous for this species. Since we have determined that the big
red sage is threatened by taking or other human activity and
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the
degree of such threat to the species, in accordance with 50 CFR
424.12(a)(1), we determine that designation of critical habitat is not
prudent for the big red sage.
Required Determinations
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders (E.O.s) 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 (ANCs) on a government-to-
government basis. In accordance with Secretary's Order 3206 of June 5,
1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust
[[Page 7056]]
Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we readily
acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with Tribes in
developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that Tribal
lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to
remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available
to Tribes. We have determined that the big red sage does not occur on
Tribal lands, so no Tribes would be affected if we list the species.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from
the Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of
the Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the Austin
Ecological Services Field Office.
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; and 4201-4245,
unless otherwise noted.
0
2. In Sec. 17.12, in paragraph (h), amend the List of Endangered and
Threatened Plants by adding an entry for ``Salvia pentstemonoides'' in
alphabetical order under FLOWERING PLANTS to read as follows:
Sec. 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing citations
Scientific name Common name Where listed Status and applicable
rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flowering Plants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Salvia pentstemonoides........... big red sage....... Wherever found..... E [Federal Register
citation when
published as a
final rule].
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2025-01117 Filed 1-17-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P