Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 99809 

by email, please contact CEQ’s Office of 

the General Counsel for assistance by 

calling 202–395–5750. 

(b) Your request must describe the 

records that you want, in enough detail 

to enable CEQ to locate them with a 

reasonable amount of effort. 

(1) You should name or describe the 

system of records you want CEQ to 

search. 

(2) If you are not sure which system 

of records you are interested in, you 

may request that CEQ inform you which 

of its systems of records, if any, contain 

records about you. 

(c) To protect the privacy of your 

records, CEQ will require you to verify 

your identity before processing your 

request. CEQ may require you to: 

(1) Provide a statement that contains 

your name, your current address, and 

your date and place of birth, and sign 

the statement before a notary public; 

(2) Verify your identity using an 

electronic authentication process; or 

(3) Supply additional information as 

necessary in order to verify your 

identity. 

(d) CEQ may deny your request if: 

(1) CEQ prepared the records you are 

seeking in reasonable anticipation of a 

civil action or proceeding (that is, a 

lawsuit or a similar proceeding); or 

(2) The Privacy Act exempts the 

system containing your records from the 

requirement that CEQ provide those 

records upon request. 

(e) If CEQ grants your request, you 

may arrange to review your records in 

person, obtain a copy from CEQ, or 

both. If you choose to review your 

records in person, you may choose one 

person to accompany you, except that 

CEQ may first require you to authorize 

CEQ to discuss your records in that 

person’s presence. 

(f) If CEQ denies your request in 

whole or in part, CEQ will give you the 

reason for its decision in writing and 

explain how you can challenge the 

denial. 

§ 1516.5 How can I get information about 

how CEQ has used its records about me? 

You can request information about 

how CEQ has used its records about 

you—called an ‘‘accounting of 

disclosures’’—using the same 

procedures you would use to make a 

request for access to your records under 

§ 1516.4. 

§ 1516.6 How can I ask CEQ to correct my 

records? 

(a) You can request that CEQ correct 

or update its records about you using 

the same procedures you would use to 

make a request for access to your 

records under § 1516.4. 

(b) In your request, you must explain 

exactly what change you are requesting 

and point out specific pieces of 

information in your CEQ records that 

are inaccurate, irrelevant, outdated, or 

incomplete. 

(c) CEQ will review your request, 

decide whether to grant or deny it, and 

inform you of the decision within 10 

working days (i.e., excepting Saturdays, 

Sundays, and Federal holidays). 

(d) If CEQ denies your request, CEQ 

will give you the reason for its decision 

in writing and explain how you can 

appeal the denial. 

§ 1516.7 How can I appeal CEQ’s decision 

to deny my request to access or correct 

records about me? 

(a) If CEQ denies your request to 

access or correct CEQ’s records about 

you, you can appeal the decision using 

the same procedures you would use to 

make a request for access to your 

records under § 1516.4. 

(b) In your appeal, you must include 

a copy of CEQ’s decision denying your 

request and explain exactly why you 

believe the decision was wrong. 

(c) The General Counsel of CEQ (or 

the General Counsel’s designee) will 

review your appeal, decide whether to 

grant or deny it, and inform you of the 

decision within 30 working days. If it is 

necessary to extend the time for making 

a decision, the Chair of CEQ (or the 

Chair’s designee) will explain why in 

writing. 

(d) If CEQ’s General Counsel (or 

designee) denies your appeal, you may 

provide CEQ with a concise statement 

that explains your disagreement with 

the decision, and you may bring a civil 

lawsuit against CEQ. 

(1) If CEQ subsequently discloses the 

disputed record under § 1516.4, we will 

clearly identify the disputed portion of 

the record and attach a copy of your 

statement of disagreement. 

(2) For more information about filing 

a civil lawsuit, see 5 U.S.C. 552a(g)(1). 

§ 1516.8 Will CEQ charge me a fee for a 

copy of my records? 

If you request a copy of CEQ’s records 

about you, CEQ may charge you a fee of 

no more than 10 cents per page, which 

you must pay before CEQ provides you 

with a copy of your records. 

[FR Doc. 2024–28871 Filed 12–10–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3325–FA–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2024–0005; 

FXES1113090FEDR–245–FF09E22000] 

RIN 1018–BG68 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Reclassification of the 

Rough Popcornflower From 

Endangered to Threatened With a 

Section 4(d) Rule 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

reclassify the rough popcornflower 

(Plagiobothrys hirtus) from endangered 

to threatened (downlist) under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). The proposed 

downlisting is based on our evaluation 

of the best available scientific and 

commercial information, which 

indicates that the species’ status has 

improved such that it is not currently in 

danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range, but that 

it is still likely to become so within the 

foreseeable future. We also propose 

protective regulations under the 

authority of section 4(d) of the Act that 

are necessary and advisable to provide 

for the conservation of the rough 

popcornflower. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

February 10, 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 public 

hearings, in writing, at the address 

shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT by January 27, 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–R1–ES–2024–0005, 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–R1–ES–2024–0005, U.S. Fish and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
99810 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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: 

This proposed rule and supporting 

documents, including the 5-year 

reviews, the Recovery Plan, and the 

species status assessment (SSA) report 

are available at https://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R1–ES–2024–0005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kessina Lee, State Supervisor, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and 

Wildlife Office, 2600 SE 98th Avenue, 

Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266; 

telephone: (503) 231–6179. 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-ofcontact in the United States. Please see 

Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2024–0005 on 

https://regulations.gov for a document 

that summarizes this proposed rule. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Why we need to publish a rule. Under 

the Act, a species warrants 

reclassification from endangered to 

threatened if it no longer meets the 

definition of an endangered species (in 

danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range). The 

rough popcornflower is listed as 

endangered, and we are proposing to 

reclassify (downlist) the rough 

popcornflower as threatened. We have 

determined the rough popcornflower 

does not meet the Act’s definition of an 

endangered species, but it does meet the 

Act’s definition of a threatened species 

(likely to become an endangered species 

within the foreseeable future throughout 

all or a significant portion of its range). 

Reclassifying a species as a 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. This rule 

proposes to downlist the rough 

popcornflower from endangered to 

threatened, with a rule issued under 

section 4(d) of the Act (a ‘‘4(d) rule’’), 

based on the species’ current status, 

which has been improved through 

implementation of conservation actions. 

The basis for our action. Under the 

Act, we may determine that a species is 

an endangered species or a threatened 

species because of any of five factors: 

(A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) 

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. We may reclassify a species if 

the best available commercial and 

scientific data indicate the species no 

longer meets the applicable definition in 

the Act. Based on the status review, the 

current threats analysis, and evaluation 

of conservation measures discussed in 

this proposed rule, we conclude that the 

rough popcornflower no longer meets 

the Act’s definition of an endangered 

species and should be reclassified to a 

threatened species. The species is no 

longer in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range, but it is likely to become so 

within the foreseeable future. 

We have determined that rough 

popcornflower is a threatened species 

due to the following threats: destruction 

or alteration of habitat by development 

and hydrological changes, competition 

from native and nonnative plant 

species, and impacts due to climate 

change. 

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) Reasons we should or should not 

downlist the rough popcornflower as a 

threatened species. 

(2) New information on the historical 

and current status, range, distribution, 

and population size of the species. 

(3) New information on the known 

and potential threats to the species, 

including habitat loss, habitat 

modification, competition, or climate 

change. 

(4) New information regarding the life 

history, ecology, and habitat use of the 

species. 

(5) Current or planned activities 

within the geographic range of the 

species that may have adverse or 

beneficial impacts on the species. 

(6) Information to assist with applying 

or issuing protective regulations under 

section 4(d) of the Act that may be 

necessary and advisable to provide for 

the conservation of the rough 

popcornflower. 

(a) In particular, information 

concerning the extent to which we 

should include any of the section 9 

prohibitions in the 4(d) rule; or 

(b) whether we should consider any 

additional or different exceptions from 

the prohibitions in the 4(d) rule. 

Please include sufficient information 

with your submission (such as scientific 

journal articles or other publications) to 

allow us to verify any scientific or 

commercial information you include. 

Please note that submissions merely 

stating support for, or opposition to, the 

action under consideration without 

providing supporting information, 

although noted, will not be considered 

in making a determination, as section 

4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that 

determinations as to whether any 

species is an endangered or a threatened 

species must be made solely on the 

basis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available. 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed in 

ADDRESSES. We request that you send 

comments only by the methods 

described in ADDRESSES. 

If you submit information via 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 99811 

information), we may conclude that the 

species should remain listed as 

endangered instead of being reclassified 

as threatened, or we may conclude that 

the species no longer warrants listing as 

either an endangered species or a 

threatened species. In addition, we may 

change the parameters of the 

prohibitions or the exceptions to those 

prohibitions in the protective 

regulations under section 4(d) of the Act 

if we conclude it is appropriate in light 

of comments and new information 

received. For example, we may expand 

the prohibitions if we conclude that the 

protective regulation as a whole, 

including those additional prohibitions, 

is necessary and advisable to provide for 

the conservation of the species. 

Conversely, we may establish additional 

or different exceptions to the 

prohibitions in the final rule if we 

conclude that the activities would 

facilitate or are compatible with the 

conservation and recovery of the 

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 these virtual public 

hearings is consistent with our 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3). 

Previous Federal Actions 

Section 12 of the Act directed the 

Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution 

to prepare a report on plants considered 

to be endangered, threatened, or extinct 

in the United States. This report, 

designated as House Document No. 94– 

51, was presented to Congress on 

January 9, 1975. On July 1, 1975, we 

published a notice in the Federal 

Register (40 FR 27823) of our 

acceptance of the report as a petition 

within the context of section 4(c)(2) 

(now section 4(b)(3)) of the Act and our 

intention to review the status of the 

plant species named in the report. 

On June 16, 1976, we published a 

proposed rule in the Federal Register 

(41 FR 24523) to designate 

approximately 1,700 vascular plant 

species, including rough popcornflower, 

as endangered pursuant to section 4 of 

the Act. In 1978, amendments to the Act 

required that all proposals over 2 years 

old be withdrawn. On December 10, 

1979, we published a notice in the 

Federal Register (44 FR 70796) of the 

withdrawal of that portion of the June 

16, 1976, proposal that had not been 

made final, along with four other 

proposals that had expired. 

On December 15, 1980, we published 

an updated notice of review for plants 

in the Federal Register (45 FR 82480) 

that included rough popcornflower as a 

category 1 candidate species. On 

November 28, 1983, we published a 

supplement to the December 15, 1980, 

notice of review in the Federal Register 

(48 FR 53640) in which we changed the 

status of rough popcornflower to a 

category 2 candidate species, and this 

species remained a category 2 candidate 

species until 1996. On January 20, 1984, 

we published a notice in the Federal 

Register (49 FR 2485) that the petitioned 

listing of this species was warranted but 

precluded by other pending listing 

actions. On February 28, 1996, we 

published a notice of review in the 

Federal Register (61 FR 7596) that 

discontinued the designation of category 

2 species as candidates. In that notice of 

review, we retained rough 

popcornflower as a candidate species. 

On November 20, 1997, we published 

a proposed rule in the Federal Register 

(62 FR 61953) to list this species as an 

endangered species under the Act, and 

on January 22, 1998, we announced a 

public hearing on, and reopened and 

extended the comment period for, that 

proposal (63 FR 3301). On January 25, 

2000, we published a final rule in the 

Federal Register (65 FR 3866) to list the 

rough popcornflower as an endangered 

species without designating critical 

habitat. 

On January 28, 2003, we published in 

the Federal Register (68 FR 4228) a 

notice of availability of the draft 

recovery plan for the rough 

popcornflower (hereafter ‘‘recovery 

plan’’). We published the notice of 

availability for the final recovery plan 

on September 25, 2003 (68 FR 55410). 

On October 25, 2019, we published a 

notice of availability of a draft 

amendment updating the recovery 

criteria in the recovery plan (84 FR 

57468), and that recovery plan 

amendment was signed on December 

20, 2019. 

On April 29, 2008, we published in 

the Federal Register (73 FR 23264) a 

notice of initiation of a 5-year review for 

rough popcornflower. A 5-year review 

was completed on August 11, 2010, 

recommending no change in the plant’s 

endangered status. On February 12, 

2016, we again published in the Federal 

Register (81 FR 7571) a notice of 

initiation of a 5-year review for rough 

popcornflower. In the most recent 5- 

year status review completed on April 

14, 2021, we determined the species no 

longer met the Act’s definition of an 

endangered species and should be 

reclassified to a threatened species. The 

2021 5-year status review is available at 

https://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2024–0005 and 

at https://ecosphere-documentsproduction-public.s3.amazonaws.com/ 

sams/public_docs/species_nonpublish/ 

949.pdf. 

For additional details on previous 

Federal actions, see https://

ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2500 for the 

species profile for this plant. 

Peer Review 

A species status assessment (SSA) 

team prepared an SSA report for the 

rough popcornflower. The SSA team 

was composed of Service biologists, in 

consultation with other species experts. 

The SSA report represents a 

compilation of the best scientific and 

commercial data available concerning 

the status of the species, including the 

impacts of past, present, and future 

factors (both negative and beneficial) 

affecting the species. 

In accordance with our joint policy on 

peer review published in the Federal 

Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), 

and our August 22, 2016, memorandum 

updating and clarifying the role of peer 

review in listing actions under the Act, 

we solicited independent scientific 

review of the information contained in 

the rough popcornflower SSA report. 

We sent the SSA report to three 

independent peer reviewers and 

received two responses. The peer 

reviews 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 two 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 information contained in the SSA 

report. The peer reviewers generally 

concurred with our methods and 

provided additional information, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
99812 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

clarifications, and editorial suggestions. 

Two specific comments were to include 

a description of the role of natural 

disturbances in the species’ habitat and 

to offer an explanation of the 

downlisting criteria as they relate to a 

minimum population size. We clarified 

these aspects in the SSA report. 

Otherwise, no substantive changes to 

our analysis and conclusions within the 

SSA report were deemed necessary, and 

peer reviewer comments are addressed 

in version 1.0 of the SSA report 

(USFWS 2021, entire). 

Proposed Reclassification 

Determination 

Background 

Rough popcornflower (Plagiobothrys 

hirtus) is an herbaceous plant in the 

borage or ‘‘forget-me-not’’ family 

(Boraginaceae) and is endemic to the 

Umpqua River basin in Douglas County, 

Oregon. Rough popcornflower is closely 

associated with emergent wetlands 

within seasonally wet meadows or 

prairie and relatively level, open 

habitats formed from poor draining clayloam soils, concentrated in the 

Sutherlin Creek sub-watershed in 

Oregon (see figure 1, below). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1EP11DE24.023</GPH>

~R 

Gnl:ritl. 

N 

··Legend 

• . POf)(;omMWer Sb 

~ NodnSPkHabffi\11 Minl~.Ara 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 99813 

Figure 1. Distribution of rough 

popcornflower in Douglas County, 

Oregon. 

Rough popcornflower can be either an 

annual or a short-lived perennial. 

Individual rough popcornflower plants 

are between 2.75 inches (in) (7 

centimeters (cm)) and 23.6 in (60 cm) 

tall, with narrow, bright-green leaves. 

Their trumpet-shaped, non-fragrant 

flowers consist of five fused petals, and 

are mostly white with yellow centers. 

Rough popcornflower plants, whether 

annual or perennial, reach sexual 

maturity and produce fruits in their first 

year. The plants generally germinate in 

the fall, bloom in late spring and early 

summer, produce seed beginning in late 

June, and then senesce between July and 

November. The species is capable of 

either self-fertilization or crossfertilization; however, generalist insect 

pollination appears to be the 

predominant vector enabling rough 

popcornflower reproduction (Amsberry 

and Meinke 2001, pp. 12–13). A 

thorough review of the taxonomy, life 

history, and ecology of the rough 

popcornflower is presented in the SSA 

report, version 1.0 (USFWS 2021, 

entire). 

Recovery Criteria 

Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to 

develop and implement recovery plans 

for the conservation and survival of 

endangered and threatened species 

unless we determine that such a plan 

will not promote the conservation of the 

species. Under section 4(f)(1)(B)(ii), 

recovery plans must, to the maximum 

extent practicable, include objective, 

measurable criteria which, when met, 

would result in a determination, in 

accordance with the provisions of 

section 4 of the Act, that the species be 

removed from the Lists of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. 

Recovery plans provide a roadmap for 

us and our partners on methods of 

enhancing conservation and minimizing 

threats to listed species, as well as 

measurable criteria against which to 

evaluate progress towards recovery and 

assess the species’ likely future 

condition. However, they are not 

regulatory documents and do not 

substitute for the determinations and 

promulgation of regulations required 

under section 4(a)(1) of the Act. A 

decision to revise the status of a species, 

or to delist a species, is ultimately based 

on an analysis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available to determine 

whether a species is no longer an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species, regardless of whether that 

information differs from the recovery 

plan. 

There are many paths to 

accomplishing recovery of a species, 

and recovery may be achieved without 

all of the criteria in a recovery plan 

being fully met. For example, one or 

more criteria may be exceeded while 

other criteria may not yet be 

accomplished. In that instance, we may 

determine that the threats are 

minimized sufficiently and that the 

species is robust enough that it no 

longer meets the definition of an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species. In other cases, we may discover 

new recovery opportunities after having 

finalized the recovery plan. Parties 

seeking to conserve the species may use 

these opportunities instead of methods 

identified in the recovery plan. 

Likewise, we may learn new 

information about the species after we 

finalize the recovery plan. The new 

information may change the extent to 

which existing criteria are appropriate 

for identifying recovery of the species. 

The recovery of a species is a dynamic 

process requiring adaptive management 

that may, or may not, follow all of the 

guidance provided in a recovery plan. 

We completed a final recovery plan 

for the rough popcornflower in 2003 

(USFWS 2003, entire) and amended the 

plan in 2019 (USFWS 2019, entire). The 

objective of the original recovery plan 

for rough popcornflower was to reduce 

the threats and increase population 

viability to the point that the species 

could be downlisted to threatened status 

(USFWS 2003, p. 21). The original 

recovery plan assigned each known 

natural population to one of three 

recovery units (Calapooya Creek, 

Sutherlin Creek, and Yoncalla Creek). 

The recovery units each corresponded 

to a drainage basin within the Lower 

North Umpqua system and represented 

groups of populations which share 

phenotypic similarities and are 

potentially genetically similar to one 

another. The original recovery plan also 

established recovery criteria for 

downlisting (USFWS 2003, pp. 21–22). 

At that time, the information available 

was insufficient to identify recovery 

criteria for delisting. The 2019 recovery 

plan amendment evaluated the 

adequacy of existing recovery criteria, 

amended downlisting criteria, added 

delisting criteria, and presented 

rationale supporting the recovery plan 

modification (USFWS 2019, entire). 

Below are the downlisting criteria for 

the rough popcornflower as amended in 

2019 (USFWS 2019, pp. 4–6), and the 

progress made to date toward achieving 

each criterion. 

Criterion 1 for Downlisting 

Criterion 1 states that at least 9 

reserves, containing a minimum of 

5,000 plants each, are protected and 

managed to assure their long-term 

survival. A reserve refers to one or more 

patches of rough popcornflower located 

within 0.6 miles (mi) (1 kilometer (km)) 

of each other that are protected from 

development and managed for the 

continued existence of the species 

(USFWS 2019, p. 3). The minimum 

population size of 5,000 individuals per 

reserve is intended to provide sufficient 

resiliency to withstand stochastic events 

(Culotta 1995, pp. 31–32; Traill et al. 

2007, p. 164). The number of reserves is 

intended to provide sufficient 

redundancy such that rough 

popcornflower is not at risk of 

extinction due to catastrophic events. 

The maximum distance between 

patches within a reserve provides 

connectivity for pollinator-mediated 

gene flow across the population 

(USFWS 2019, p. 4). 

At the time of listing, our knowledge 

of rough popcornflower abundance and 

distribution was limited to roughly 

7,000 known plants in 8 populations 

(USFWS 2021 p. 9). Since then, many 

conservation partners have made 

significant contributions to rough 

popcornflower recovery efforts. For 

example, the Oregon Department of 

Agriculture has collected seed, sown 

seed for use by multiple partners, 

augmented existing populations, 

conducted monitoring, and provided 

technical expertise. Other conservation 

partners, such as the Douglas County 

Soil and Water Conservation District, 

City of Sutherlin, and Bureau of Land 

Management, have entered into formal 

agreements to perform habitat 

restoration followed by seeding on a 

number of properties. Recent surveys 

(USFWS 2021, appendix 3; USFWS 

2022, entire; USFWS 2023a, entire) 

documented a total of 12 rough 

popcornflower reserves. Eleven of those 

reserves are protected and managed 

while one reserve (a privately owned 

parcel containing over 700,000 plants) is 

currently adequately managed but is not 

protected (see table 1, below). Ten of the 

12 reserves meet the minimum 

population size of 5,000 individuals per 

reserve to fully satisfy criterion 1. This 

number of plants and the distribution of 

populations is expected to enable rough 

popcornflower to withstand both 

stochastic and catastrophic events, and 

to maintain the capacity to adapt to 

future environmental changes. As such, 

we conclude that this downlisting 

criterion has been met and exceeded. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
99814 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Criterion 2 for Downlisting 

Criterion 2 states a minimum of 5,382 

square feet (ft2) (500 square meters (m2)) 

is occupied by the rough popcornflower 

within each of the 9 reserves meeting 

criterion 1. The intent of this criterion 

is to have multiple populations large 

enough to maintain sufficient resiliency 

to withstand stochastic events. 

Seven of the 10 reserves that meet 

criterion 1 contain at least 5,382 ft2 (500 

m2) of occupied habitat to meet the 

description of criterion 2. Two other 

populations (Deady and Southside 

Swale) also meet or exceed the area 

coverage parameter but do not satisfy 

the criterion as they are either not 

considered to be a protected population 

or do not meet the minimum number of 

plants to be considered a reserve (see 

table 1, below). Although this criterion 

is not fully met as identified in the 

recovery plan, there are nine 

populations that meet or exceed the area 

coverage parameter. We conclude that 

the intent of this criterion has been met 

because having 9 populations with 

5,382 ft2 (500 m2) occupied by rough 

popcornflower distributed across the 

species’ range is expected to enable 

rough popcornflower to withstand both 

stochastic and catastrophic events, and 

to maintain the capacity to adapt to 

future environmental changes. 

Criterion 3 for Downlisting 

Criterion 3 states that a minimum of 

nine reserves, each meeting criteria 1 

and 2, are distributed across the 

recovery units, with a minimum of five 

reserves in the Sutherlin Creek recovery 

unit and at least one reserve each in the 

Yoncalla Creek and Calapooya Creek 

recovery units. The remaining two 

reserves may be located within any of 

the natural recovery units, or elsewhere 

within the watersheds containing the 

recovery units. The intent of this 

criterion is to provide sufficient 

redundancy of populations across the 

species’ range to allow the species to 

withstand catastrophic events. 

Of the seven reserves meeting criteria 

1 and 2, four are in the Sutherlin Creek 

recovery unit, one is in the Yoncalla 

Creek recovery unit, and two are in the 

Umpqua Management Area, which 

includes introduced populations of 

rough popcornflower in the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM)’s North Bank 

Habitat Management Area. 

Criterion 3 has not been fully met 

because the number of reserves fully 

meeting both criteria 1 and 2 is not met. 

However, the distribution of 11 

populations that exceed 5,000 plants (10 

protected) across all recovery units and 

the Umpqua Management Area, and 9 

populations that exceed 5,382 ft2 (500 

m2) occupied by rough popcornflower, 

demonstrate that relatively large 

populations are spatially distributed 

across the species’ range such that rough 

popcornflower is expected to withstand 

both stochastic and catastrophic events, 

and to maintain the capacity to adapt to 

future environmental changes, lead us 

to conclude that the intent of this 

downlisting criterion has been met. 

Criterion 4 for Downlisting 

Criterion 4 states that over a 5-year 

period, with a minimum of 3 individual 

years of monitoring, demographic data 

indicate at least seven of the nine 

reserves referenced in criterion 1 have 

average population numbers that are 

stable or increasing, without decreasing 

trends lasting more than 2 years. Stable 

or increasing populations are an 

indicator of resiliency. While some 

inter-annual variability is expected due 

to demographic and environmental 

stochasticity, this criterion is intended 

to provide sufficient confidence that 

large, sustained declines will not occur. 

Population monitoring, which entails 

taking a full plant census, takes place in 

late spring or early summer either 

annually or biannually. We monitor 

populations on private, city, or county 

land when authorized to do so. 

Alternatively, we provide funding 

through the Cooperative Endangered 

Species Conservation Fund to the 

Oregon Department of Agriculture to 

monitor populations. Conservation 

partners including the Bureau of Land 

Management, Oregon Department of 

Transportation, and The Nature 

Conservancy monitor populations on 

their lands biennially. 

Five of the 10 rough popcornflower 

reserves that meet criterion 1 also 

currently meet this criterion (see table 1, 

below). Although the remaining five 

reserves meeting criterion 1 have not 

been monitored with sufficient 

frequency to satisfy all of the 

requirements of this criterion, they have 

maintained relatively stable population 

numbers between monitoring events 

from 2011 to 2023 (USFWS 2021 pp. 

13–16; USFWS 2022, entire; USFWS 

2023a, entire). Having all 10 of the 

reserve populations exhibiting stable or 

increasing numbers across the range of 

the species demonstrates that rough 

popcornflower has sufficient resiliency 

to respond to inter-annual 

environmental variability and is 

unlikely to experience sustained 

declines across its range. As such, we 

conclude that the intent of this 

downlisting criterion has been met. 

TABLE 1—ROUGH POPCORNFLOWER DOWNLISTING CRITERIA AND STATUS BY RECOVERY UNITS/AREA, DOUGLAS

COUNTY, OREGON

[✓ = criterion met] 

Population Recovery unit 

Downlisting criteria 

#1 #2 #3 

#4 

Plants >5,000 

(# of plants) 

Managed or 

protected 

Patches 

within 1 km 

Area >500 m2

(size in m2) 

DC #1 and 

#2 met 4

3 survey yrs. 

w/in last 

5 yrs.; no 

2-yr decrease 

1. Horsepasture 2 .................................. Sutherland Creek .. ✓ 

(700,000) 

✓ ✓ ✓ 

(10,700) 

✓ ........................

2. TNC 1 Oerding/ODOT 2 Del Rio ........ Sutherland Creek .. ✓ 

(29,681) 

✓ ✓ ✓ 

(800) 

✓ ✓ 

3. ODOT 2 Wilbur Mitigation site ........... Sutherland Creek .. ✓ 

(42,511) 

✓ ✓ ✓ 

(1,810) 

✓ ........................

4. Hawthorne ......................................... Sutherland Creek .. (250) ........................ ✓ (150) ........................ ........................

5. Orenco Ponds ................................... Sutherland Creek .. ✓ 

(14,380) 

✓ ✓ ✓ 

(1,500) 

✓ ✓ 

6. Red Rock .......................................... Sutherland Creek .. ✓ 

(5,092) 

✓ ✓ (372) ........................ ✓ 

7. Southside Swale ............................... Sutherland Creek .. (525) ✓ ✓ ✓ 

(550) 

........................ ✓ 

8. Deady ................................................ Sutherland Creek .. ✓ 

(6,000) 

........................ ✓ ✓ 

(500) 

........................ ........................


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 99815 

TABLE 1—ROUGH POPCORNFLOWER DOWNLISTING CRITERIA AND STATUS BY RECOVERY UNITS/AREA, DOUGLAS

COUNTY, OREGON—Continued 

[✓ = criterion met] 

Population Recovery unit 

Downlisting criteria 

#1 #2 #3 

#4 

Plants >5,000 

(# of plants) 

Managed or 

protected 

Patches 

within 1 km 

Area >500 m2

(size in m2) 

DC #1 and 

#2 met 4

3 survey yrs. 

w/in last 

5 yrs.; no 

2-yr decrease 

9. Sutherland East ................................ Sutherland Creek .. (1,000) ........................ ✓ (6) ........................ ........................

10. Ford’s Pond ..................................... Callapooya Creek .. ✓ 

(5,082) 

✓ ✓ (450) ........................ ✓ 

11. Stearns Lane ................................... Callapooya Creek .. (0) ........................ ✓ (0) ........................ ........................

12. Nonpareil ......................................... Callapooya Creek .. (0) ........................ ✓ (0) ........................ ........................

13. Goat Ranch ..................................... Callapooya Creek .. (75) ........................ ✓ (5) ........................ ........................

14. ODOT 2 Yoncalla South .................. Yoncalla Creek ...... ✓ 

(5,800) 

✓ ✓ (350) ........................ ........................

15. ODOT 2 Yoncalla 2 .......................... Yoncalla Creek ...... ✓ 

(5,595) 

✓ ✓ ✓ 

(800) 

✓ ........................

16. Soggy Bottoms Patch ..................... Umpqua Mgmt. 

Area 3.

(3,363) ✓ ✓ (108) ........................ ........................

17. Middle Barn/Soggy Bottoms Sister Umpqua Mgmt. 

Area 3.

✓ 

(11,222) 

✓ ✓ ✓ 

(1,000) 

✓ ✓ 

18. Westgate ......................................... Umpqua Mgmt. 

Area 3.

✓ 

(6,000) 

✓ ✓ ✓ 

(600) 

✓ ........................

Total ............................................... ................................ 836,576 plants ........................ ........................ 19,701 m2 ........................ ........................

1TNC means The Nature Conservancy. 

2ODOT means the Oregon Department of Transportation. 

3The Umpqua Management Area is not an official recovery unit. This area is an additional recovery management area that includes introduced populations of 

rough popcornflower in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)’s North Bank Habitat Management Area. 4 Downlisting Criterion 3 states that a minimum of nine reserves, each meeting the requirements in Downlisting Criteria 1 and 2, are distributed with at least one reserve each in the Calapooya Creek and Yoncalla Creek recovery units, and a minimum of five reserves in the Sutherlin Creek recovery unit. 

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 threatened and 

endangered 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 consider these same five 

factors in downlisting a species from 

endangered to threatened. 

We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in 

general to actions or conditions that are 

known to or are reasonably likely to 

negatively affect individuals of a 

species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes 

actions or conditions that have a direct 

impact on individuals (direct impacts), 

as well as those that affect individuals 

through alteration of their habitat or 

required resources (stressors). The term 

‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either 

together or separately—the source of the 

action or condition or the action or 

condition itself. 

However, the mere identification of 

any threat(s) does not necessarily mean 

that the species meets the statutory 

definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or 

a ‘‘threatened species.’’ In determining 

whether a species meets either 

definition, we must evaluate all 

identified threats by considering the 

species’ expected response and the 

effects of the threats—in light of those 

actions and conditions that will 

ameliorate the threats—on an 

individual, population, and species 

level. We evaluate each threat and its 

expected effects on the species, then 

analyze the cumulative effect of all of 

the threats on the species as a whole. 

We also consider the cumulative effect 

of the threats in light of those actions 

and conditions that will have positive 

effects on the species—such as any 

existing regulatory mechanisms or 

conservation efforts. The Secretary 

determines whether the species meets 

the definition of an ‘‘endangered 

species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’ only 

after conducting this cumulative 

analysis and describing the expected 

effect on the species. 

The Act does not define the term 

‘‘foreseeable future,’’ which appears in 

the statutory definition of ‘‘threatened 

species.’’ Our implementing regulations 

at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a 

framework for evaluating the foreseeable 

future on a case-by-case basis which is 

further described in the 2009 

Memorandum Opinion on the 

foreseeable future from the Department 

of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor 

(M–37021, January 16, 2009; ‘‘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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
99816 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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 

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 

reclassified as a 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 the rough popcornflower’s 

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 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. We use this information to inform 

our regulatory decision. 

The following is a summary of the key 

results and conclusions from the SSA 

report; the full SSA report (USFWS 

2021, entire) can be found on https://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R1–ES–2024–0005. 

Summary of Biological Status and 

Threats 

In this discussion, we review the 

biological condition of the species and 

its resources, and the threats that 

influence the species’ current and future 

condition, in order to assess the species’ 

overall viability and the risks to that 

viability. In addition, the SSA report 

(USFWS 2021, entire) documents our 

comprehensive biological status review 

for the species, including an assessment 

of the potential threats to the species. 

The following is a summary of this 

status review and the best available 

information gathered since that time 

that have informed this decision. 

Ecological Needs 

Rough popcornflower typically 

occupies seasonally wet meadows or 

prairie, seasonally-ponding mudflats, 

and Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia) 

swale openings dominated by native 

wetland-associated plants in valley 

lowlands where the ground is moist 

well into the summer season. Rough 

popcornflower requires early seral 

habitat and is not associated with dense 

tree or shrub canopies. Periodic 

disturbance (e.g., flooding, fire, mowing, 

or grazing) is necessary to control 

nonnative and native plant competitors 

and maintain the early seral and open 

habitat conditions in which rough 

popcornflower populations thrive. 

Several insects are known to pollinate 

rough popcornflower: honey bees (Apis 

spp.); bumble bees (Bombus spp.); 

halictid and megachilid bees; Hemiptera 

(true bugs); bombyliid, syrphid, and 

tachinid flies; and red-shouldered 

ctenucha moths (Ctenucha 

rubroscapus). These insects require 

diverse native vegetation and minimal 

pesticide exposure. 

Resilient rough popcornflower 

populations need enough individuals to 

withstand stochastic events and 

disturbances. The minimum viable 

population size for rough popcornflower 

has not been identified. However, the 

recovery plan characterizes 500 plants 

as an effective population size and 

expanded that effective population size 

by a factor of 10 to determine a 

minimum population size estimate of 

5,000 plants. This number represents 

the population size resilient to most 

disturbances and capable of resisting 

inbreeding depression (USFWS 2003, p. 

17; USFWS 2019, p. 4). Though some 

current populations may have fewer 

than 5,000 plants, taking into 

consideration other factors such as 

habitat quantity, habitat quality, 

connectivity, management, protection, 

reproduction, they may still be 

considered to have high resiliency 

(USFWS 2021, p. 31). 

For rough popcornflower to be 

considered viable as a species, it must 

be able to withstand catastrophic events 

and adapt to environmental changes. 

This can be achieved with enough 

resilient populations distributed across 

the species’ geographic range, 

representing the range of ecological 

settings in which the species is known 

to exist. The minimum number of 

populations required for rough 

popcornflower has not been determined. 

However, distribution and abundance 

goals laid out in the recovery plan 

(USFWS 2003, pp. 21–22; USFWS 2019, 

pp. 4–8) and described above under 

Recovery Criteria provide a benchmark 

for evaluating the species’ condition. 

Factors Influencing the Species 

When we listed rough popcornflower 

as endangered (65 FR 3866; January 25, 

2000), the primary threats included 

habitat alteration by wetland filling and 

development, livestock grazing (or 

herbivory), and competition from native 

and nonnative species. Small, isolated 

populations were identified as making 

the species more vulnerable to these 

threats. Overcollection for scientific or 

horticultural purposes, vandalism, the 

inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms, 

road maintenance, fire, and flooding 

were also identified as potential threats 

(65 FR 3866 at 3870–3872; January 25, 

2000), but the available information 

does not indicate that these factors pose 

a threat to the species (USFWS 2003, p. 

13; USFWS 2023b, entire). Climate 

change was recognized as an additional 

threat in 2010 (USFWS 2010, p. 28). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 99817 

Habitat Loss and Fragmentation 

In the final listing rule (65 FR 3866 at 

3869; January 25, 2000), we described 

how rough popcornflower populations 

had become fragmented due to draining 

and filling of wetlands from properties 

being developed. At the time of listing, 

only five populations of rough 

popcornflower were protected from 

detrimental land-use activities. 

Currently, 11 of the 18 known 

populations are under Federal, State, 

municipal, or land trust protections; one 

is not protected but is on adequately 

managed land. Education efforts have 

increased recognition of rough 

popcornflower habitat, as well as 

avoidance, minimization, or mitigation 

of development impacts. Because 11 of 

the 18 known populations are now 

protected, the threat posed by 

detrimental land use activities has been 

significantly reduced since the time of 

listing. However, because formal 

commitments for the long-term 

beneficial management of rough 

popcornflower have not been secured 

for 7 populations (approximately 84 

percent of the total number of 

individuals rangewide) this threat may 

increase in the future. 

Small Population Size 

In the final listing rule (65 FR 3866 at 

3869–3870; January 25, 2000), we 

described the distribution of the rough 

popcornflower as 17 small patches of 1 

to 3,000 plants (8 populations with 

approximately 7,000 plants total) that 

were threatened by natural (i.e., flood) 

and/or anthropogenic (e.g., herbicide 

treatment) events. At that time, the 

species’ small population size was 

considered a threat because a single 

natural or human-caused event could 

have the potential to extirpate rough 

popcornflower patches. 

Since that time, rough popcornflower 

occurrences have expanded to 18 

populations and more than 800,000 

plants (see table 1, above). Twelve of the 

18 current individual populations have 

3,000 or more plants, 11 of which have 

more than 5,000 plants. Although small 

populations occur that remain 

vulnerable to extirpation, individual 

populations are broadly distributed and 

the likelihood of a large-scale event 

affecting them collectively is unlikely. 

During years with below average 

precipitation, drought, or fires, seed set 

could fall short of what is needed to 

maintain population stability. However, 

with a large amount of seed produced 

by plants, it is likely that any periodic 

depletion of seed bank will be shortterm and the seed bank will be 

replenished (USFWS 2021, p. 7). One 

population thought to be extirpated for 

several years was documented flowering 

after 3 years of species absence 

(Amsberry and Meinke 2008, p. 14). 

At the time of listing, data also 

indicated that small, isolated 

populations may not be able to sustain 

adequate genetic variation, and that a 

lack of connectivity between isolated 

patches and populations would limit 

pollinator-mediated gene flow. Our 

current analysis of connectivity for the 

18 rough popcornflower populations 

ranked 11 populations as having high 

connectivity (within 950 meters (m) 

(3,117 feet (ft)) or less) and 3 

populations as having medium 

connectivity (between 950 and 1,500 m 

(3,117 and 4,921 ft)) (USFWS 2021, p. 

35), indicating that rough 

popcornflower populations are less 

isolated than at the time of listing. 

Overall, while the connectivity of small 

populations is still of some concern, the 

species is much less vulnerable to the 

effects of small population size and 

genetic isolation than when it was listed 

in 2000. 

Herbivory 

Herbivory by Columbian white-tailed 

deer (Odocoileus virginianus leucurus), 

black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus 

columbianus), rodents, and livestock 

has been documented and was 

identified as a threat to rough 

popcornflower (65 FR 3866 at 3871; 

January 25, 2000). Although high 

densities of white-tailed and blacktailed deer overlap with the distribution 

of rough popcornflower, the best 

available information does not indicate 

that deer herbivory is adversely 

impacting rough popcornflower 

populations (USFWS 2021, p. 23). 

Grazing by livestock may or may not 

be consistent with rough popcornflower 

conservation. Grazing of rough 

popcornflower during its growing 

period can be detrimental to the species. 

However, grazing can help control 

native and nonnative plant competitors 

and provide a measure of disturbance 

that maintains the preferable early seral 

and open habitat conditions for rough 

popcornflower. Four rough 

popcornflower populations with more 

than 5,000 plants are on privatelyowned grazing lands; the largest single 

population (more than 700,000 plants) 

is on a private horse ranch where 

grazing is managed in a manner 

compatible with the long-term survival 

of rough popcornflower (USFWS 2021, 

p. 16). Depending on how grazing is 

managed, it can adversely impact or 

benefit individual populations of rough 

popcornflower. With 12 of the 18 

populations considered protected or on 

adequately managed land, livestock 

herbivory is not currently considered a 

threat to the species overall. However, 

because formal commitments for longterm management of livestock grazing 

for the benefit of rough popcornflower 

have not been secured for some 

populations (including the largest 

population of over 700,000 plants), this 

threat may increase in the future. 

Native and Nonnative Plant 

Encroachment 

Native and nonnative plants, 

including pennyroyal (Mentha 

pulegium), teasel (Dipsacus spp.), 

creeping thistle (Cirsium arvense), and 

reed canary grass (Phalaris 

arundinacea), are a primary threat to the 

establishment and maintenance of rough 

popcornflower due to their 

encroachment of habitat and 

elimination of bare ground, which 

popcornflower seeds require to 

germinate. Pennyroyal is present at 

many rough popcornflower sites, and 

teasel and creeping thistle control 

require constant conservation efforts at 

the North Bank Habitat Management 

Area (NBHMA), Yoncalla South and 

TNC Popcorn Swale Preserve 

populations. 

Rough popcornflower is conservation 

reliant, and when natural disturbance 

events are lacking, active management 

(e.g., manual weeding, herbicide 

application, mowing, and strategic 

grazing) is necessary to control 

competing vegetation and maintain 

early seral habitats to help maintain 

many of the rough popcornflower 

populations into the future (USFWS 

2010, p. 27). Invasive plants appear to 

be less of a concern on private lands due 

to livestock grazing (USFWS 2020, p.2). 

Strategic grazing by livestock, in terms 

of seasonal grazing periods and 

intensity, when closely monitored, can 

benefit rough popcornflower 

populations by reducing plant 

competition and creating open ground 

that facilitates seed germination and 

enables population expansion (USFWS 

2021, p. 24). 

While competition with native and 

nonnative plants remains an ongoing 

threat to rough popcornflower, this 

threat can be successfully managed 

through continued investments in the 

adaptive management practices that 

have resulted in flourishing populations 

across the species’ range (USFWS 2021, 

appendices 3 and 4). 

Fire 

At the time of listing, fire was 

considered a natural event key to the 

formation and maintenance of rough 

popcornflower habitat (65 FR 3866 at 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
99818 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

3867; January 25, 2000). In late 

September 2003, an accidental fire 

burned across the North Bank/Soggy 

Bottoms rough popcornflower 

population at moderate intensity. The 

year following the burn, staff noted that 

individual rough popcornflower plants 

were much larger and robust, and the 

population had increased. The 

population dropped significantly during 

the following 5 years, although that was 

considered likely due to changed site 

hydrology. While the effects of fire in 

rough popcornflower habitat restoration 

are still unknown (USFWS 2010, p. 27), 

data collected after the 2003 fire suggest 

that low- to moderate-intensity fire can 

have at least short-term beneficial 

effects to the species. 

Climate Change 

The likely impacts of climate change 

on rough popcornflower’s ecological 

processes are closely connected to the 

availability of water. Due to their 

shallow and ephemeral nature, wet 

swales in southwestern Oregon are 

particularly sensitive to increases in 

evaporation or reductions in rainfall. 

Strong climate variability is likely to 

persist in the Pacific Northwest, owing 

in part to the annual and decadal 

climate variability associated with the 

Pacific Ocean (May et al. 2018, p. 1039). 

Models project periods of prolonged 

drought interspersed with years 

featuring heavy rainfall driven by 

powerful atmospheric rivers and strong 

El Nin ̃ o winters (May et al. 2018, p. 

1039). Even modest temperature 

increases could result in more water 

runoff in winter and less in spring and 

summer, more winter flooding, and 

drier summer soils, thereby altering the 

seasonality and duration of wetland 

hydration (Field et al. 2017, p. 18). 

Reduced soil moisture due to 

evaporation and transpiration may 

exacerbate drought effects (Field et al. 

2017, p. 18). Drought-mediated 

decreases in water depth and 

inundation periods could increase the 

frequency at which wetlands dry before 

rough popcornflower has completed its 

flowering and fruiting stages. However, 

Southern Oregon, along with other areas 

in the western United States, has been 

experiencing a prolonged drought for 

several years (Fleishman 2023, p. 52) 

and rough popcornflower continued to 

demonstrate stable or increasing 

population trends. Climate change 

could also cause temperatures to exceed 

those suitable for growth of the species 

(USFWS 2010, p. 28). 

The impact of climate change on 

rough popcornflower will likely vary 

depending on site-specific conditions 

and annual precipitation variation. 

Rough popcornflower individuals are 

naturally adaptive to fall and winter 

inundation and depend on soil moisture 

until their seed has matured. An earlier 

warming trend may result in a limited 

seed set because the soil will dry out 

quicker and may benefit nonnative 

plants. Habitat management using 

herbicides and prescribed burning 

would likely increase with an increase 

in nonnative plants. However, if climate 

change in Oregon results in wetter 

winters and springs as predicted 

(Fleishman 2023, pp. 11–12), then the 

additional precipitation may lengthen 

seed set and favor popcornflower 

survival over competitors unable to 

adapt to saturated soils. 

Current Condition 

Resiliency 

Resiliency, the ability of populations 

to withstand stochastic events, is 

commonly determined as a function of 

metrics such as population size, growth 

rate, or habitat quality and quantity. We 

evaluated the current resiliency of rough 

popcornflower populations based on the 

population size, habitat quantity, 

connectivity, habitat quality, 

management frequency, reproductive 

success, and the degree of protection 

afforded to each population (see tables 

2 through 8, below). Populations with 

over 5,000 mature plants were 

determined to be in high condition 

based on the downlisting criteria 

outlined in the species’ recovery plan. 

Populations of over 1,000 plants were 

considered to be in medium condition, 

and those with under 200 plants were 

considered to be in low condition. We 

then assigned numerical values to each 

of those condition category rankings in 

order to categorize the current overall 

resiliency of each rough popcornflower 

population (see table 9, below). A 

complete description of our analytical 

approach to current condition is 

available in the SSA report (USFWS 

2021, pp. 34–37). 

TABLE 2—POPULATION SIZE RANKINGS OF ROUGH POPCORNFLOWER POPULATIONS FROM THE SSA REPORT AND

SUBSEQUENT SURVEYS

Population size 

(# of plants) 

Number of 

populations in 

2021 

Number of 

populations in 

2023 

High (≥5,000) ..................................................................................................................................................... 13 11 

Medium (1,000–4,999) ....................................................................................................................................... 2 2 

Low (1–999) ....................................................................................................................................................... 3 5 

TABLE 3—HABITAT QUANTITY RANKINGS OF ROUGH POPCORNFLOWER POPULATIONS FROM THE SSA REPORT AND

SUBSEQUENT SURVEYS

Habitat quantity 

(amount) 

Number of 

populations in 

2021 

Number of 

populations in 

2023 

High (>5,382 ft2/1640 m2) ................................................................................................................................. 7 9 

Medium (820–5,382 ft2/250–1640 m2) .............................................................................................................. 3 3 

Low (<820 ft2/250 m2) ....................................................................................................................................... 8 6 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 99819 

TABLE 4—CONNECTIVITY RANKINGS OF ROUGH POPCORNFLOWER POPULATIONS FROM THE SSA REPORT AND

SUBSEQUENT SURVEYS

Connectivity 

(proximity to next population) * 

Number of 

populations in 

2021 

Number of populations in 2023 

High (<3,117 ft/950 m) ................................................................................................. 11 No change reported. 

Medium (3,120–4921 ft/950–2000 m) .......................................................................... 3 No change reported. 

Low (>6,562 ft/2000 m) ................................................................................................ 4 No change reported. 

* Scores are not strictly distance-based if populations are separated by barriers such as development, roads, or expanses of unsuitable habitat. 

TABLE 5—HABITAT QUALITY RANKINGS OF ROUGH POPCORNFLOWER POPULATIONS FROM THE SSA REPORT AND

SUBSEQUENT SURVEYS

Habitat quality 

(presence of invasive species) 

Number of 

populations in 

2021 

Number of populations in 2023 

High (no invasive species) ........................................................................................... 5 No change reported. 

Medium (1–2 invasive species) .................................................................................... 8 No change reported. 

Low (dominated by invasive species) .......................................................................... 5 No change reported. 

TABLE 6—MANAGEMENT FREQUENCY RANKINGS OF ROUGH POPCORNFLOWER POPULATIONS FROM THE SSA REPORT

AND SUBSEQUENT SURVEYS

Management frequency 

(interval) 

Number of 

populations in 

2021 

Number of 

populations in 2023 

High (continuous, annual, or biennial) ......................................................................... 10 No change reported. 

Medium (3–5 years) ..................................................................................................... 5 No change reported. 

Low (5 years) ............................................................................................................... 3 No change reported. 

TABLE 7—REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS RANKINGS OF ROUGH POPCORNFLOWER POPULATIONS FROM THE SSA REPORT AND

SUBSEQUENT SURVEYS

Reproductive success 

(measures) 

Number of 

populations in 

2021 

Number of 

populations in 2023 

High (>5,000 plants and 100 percent seed production) .............................................. 15 No change reported. 

Medium (3,000–5,000 plants, 75–99 percent seed production) .................................. 1 No change reported. 

Low (<3,000 plants, 0–74 percent seed production) ................................................... 2 No change reported. 

TABLE 8—PROTECTED STATUS RANKINGS OF ROUGH POPCORNFLOWER POPULATIONS FROM THE SSA REPORT AND

SUBSEQUENT SURVEYS

Protected status 

Number of 

populations in 

2021 

Number of 

populations in 2023 

Yes ............................................................................................................................... 12 No change reported. 

No ................................................................................................................................. 6 No change reported. 

TABLE 9—OVERALL RESILIENCY RANKINGS OF ROUGH POPCORNFLOWER POPULATIONS FROM THE SSA REPORT AND

SUBSEQUENT SURVEYS

Overall resiliency 

Number of 

populations in 

2021 

Number of 

populations in 

2023 

High .................................................................................................................................................................... 11 10 

Moderate ............................................................................................................................................................ 3 3 

Low .................................................................................................................................................................... 4 5 

As shown above in table 9, at the time 

of the SSA report in 2021, 11 (61 

percent) of the 18 rough popcornflower 

populations scored high for resiliency, 3 

(17 percent) scored moderate, and 4 (22 

percent) scored low. Changes in 

condition category rankings as a result 

of additional surveys conducted from 

2021–2023 (USFWS 2022, entire; 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
99820 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

USFWS 2023a, entire) resulted in 

overall resiliency rankings of 10 (55 

percent) high, 3 (17 percent) moderate, 

and 5 (28 percent) low. These results 

demonstrate relatively high resiliency 

across the range of the rough 

popcornflower. 

Redundancy 

Redundancy is a species’ ability to 

withstand catastrophic events and is a 

function of the number and resilience of 

populations, as well as their distribution 

and connectivity. At the time of listing, 

there were eight known rough 

popcornflower populations. Currently, 

there are 18 known populations. Some 

of this increase is due to newly 

discovered populations; however, since 

the time of listing, habitat restoration, 

reintroductions, and habitat protection 

have collectively improved the status of 

the species. Of the 18 known 

populations, 10 populations score high 

for overall resiliency and are distributed 

across the range of the species, with 6 

in the Sutherlin Creek recovery unit, 2 

in the Yoncalla Creek recovery unit, and 

2 in the Umpqua Management Area. The 

eight populations with moderate or low 

resiliency contribute to the species’ 

redundancy to a lesser degree and are 

distributed across the Calapooya Creek 

and Sutherlin Creek recovery units and 

the Umpqua Management Area. The 

distribution of 10 populations with high 

resiliency across two of the three 

recovery units and the management area 

demonstrates good redundancy for the 

species. 

Representation 

Representation refers to the ability of 

a species to adapt to change, and is 

assessed using geographic, genetic, 

ecological, and niche diversity data. 

Ecological diversity and genetic 

variation based on habitat differences, 

differences in annual and biennial life 

histories, and differences in growth 

forms may be inferred from the rough 

popcornflower’s distribution across 

different sub-watersheds. Multiple 

populations with high resiliency 

throughout the species’ range, along 

with populations of lesser resiliency, 

facilitate the preservation of the genetic 

diversity present within each recovery 

unit. Although populations with fewer 

than 5,000 plants may have lower 

genetic variation, rough popcornflower’s 

wide variety of possible pollinators 

(Amsberry and Meinke 2001, pp. 12–13) 

assists in gene transfer and could boost 

the genetic variation of these 

populations. 

Natural and reintroduced rough 

popcornflower populations are 

currently distributed in multiple subwatersheds across the species’ historical 

range, and plants demonstrate diversity 

within and between populations, 

including different growth forms and 

flowering times. Additionally, rough 

popcornflower seeds do not all 

germinate every year, and a portion of 

the seed bank likely remains in the 

ground. The presence of a long-term 

seed bank allows rough popcornflower 

to persist through periods of adverse 

environmental conditions. In 

combination, these factors indicate that 

the species has the capacity to adapt to 

a variety of environmental conditions 

and has good representation. 

Future Condition 

To assess the future viability of rough 

popcornflower, we considered the 

factors that will influence the species 

within the foreseeable future. We define 

the foreseeable future as 30 years, as we 

consider this a reasonable timeframe to 

make reliable predictions about the 

threats to this species and its response 

to those threats due to this plant’s 

reproductive strategy as an annual or 

short-lived perennial. Our viability 

assessment is characterized in terms of 

the resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation of the species as 

projected under various plausible future 

conditions (Shaffer and Stein 2000 pp. 

306–310; Wolf et al. 2015, entire; Smith 

et al. 2018, pp. 304, 306–307). We 

projected the viability of rough 

popcornflower from 2020 to 2050 under 

three plausible future scenarios based 

on potential trends with conservation 

partners, climate patterns, and 

population demographics. Scenario A 

represented improvements over current 

conditions. Scenario B represented the 

most likely conditions if current trends 

continue. Scenario C represented 

conditions that are worse than current 

conditions. 

Scenario A assumes continued 

conservation support for the rough 

popcornflower, including from private 

landowners throughout the species’ 

range, as well as additional funding for 

outplanting and invasive vegetation 

control. Scenario B is the most likely 

scenario for the rough popcornflower 

based on current agency commitments, 

outplanting successes, the current 

ability to place conservation 

agreements, and species’ population 

demographic trends. We discuss 

Scenario B further below. Scenario C 

assumes diminished habitat conditions 

and management actions (e.g., mowing, 

manual or chemical control of nonnative herbaceous plants, prescribed 

burning), falling short of what is 

needed, resulting in the reduction of the 

species’ resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation over the next 30 years. 

For further details on all three scenarios, 

see the SSA report (USFWS 2021, pp. 

41–47). 

We determined that rough 

popcornflower is expected to continue 

to be influenced by the factors that have 

historically influenced and are currently 

influencing the species, at rates most 

closely associated with Scenario B. 

Scenario B represents the most likely 

conditions if current trends continue 

(USFWS 2021, pp. 44–45). 

In Scenario B, we made several 

assumptions about ongoing 

conservation support within the 

foreseeable future. Several conservation 

partners (government agencies, 

nonprofit conservation organizations, 

academic institutions, and private 

landowners) have made significant 

contributions to recovery efforts for 

rough popcornflower. We assume that 

these partners will continue to 

collaborate and contribute conservation 

resources to rough popcornflower and 

its habitat based on current regulations 

and agency commitments, outplanting 

successes, and our ability to obtain 

conservation agreements. Continued 

outreach efforts are likely to support 

awareness of the species among private 

landowners and the public and to 

generate support for conservation. We 

also assume that development projects 

will continue to be evaluated and 

modified by the Service, the Oregon 

Department of State Lands, and the 

Oregon Department of Agriculture, to 

minimize or mitigate impacts to rough 

popcornflower and its habitats. 

Under a continually increasing 

greenhouse gas emission scenario, 

Oregon’s annual average temperature is 

projected to increase by 5 degrees 

Fahrenheit (°F) (2.8 degrees Celsius (°C)) 

by the 2050s (Fleishman 2023, p. 11). In 

this scenario, the amount of annual 

precipitation is projected to be highly 

uncertain. Summers are expected to 

warm more than the annual average and 

are likely to become drier. Extreme heat 

and precipitation events are expected to 

become more frequent (Dalton et al. 

2017, p. 8). The effects of climate 

change on rough popcornflower 

populations are expected to be relatively 

moderate. Most rough popcornflower 

plants are expected to adjust to warmer 

temperatures by dispersing to moister 

habitats (via ungulates, other mammals, 

or birds), flowering earlier, and 

shortening their flowering period 

(USFWS 2021, p. 42). Climate change 

may limit rough popcornflower’s 

growing season and habitat as well as 

moisture availability, though the species 

would continue to maintain viability 

within the three recovery units and the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 99821 

introduced populations at the Umpqua 

Management Area (USFWS 2021, p. 45). 

We acknowledge that some populations 

may fare better than others under future 

conditions. 

For species resiliency in Scenario B, 

we expect there will be a total of 20 

rough popcornflower populations. At 

least 10 of those populations are 

anticipated to be in protected areas 

(reserves), contain populations that 

meet or exceed 5,000 plants, and exhibit 

stable or increasing population counts 

in 7 out of 10 years (see table 10, below). 

In terms of redundancy, protected 

rough popcornflower populations are 

expected to continue to be distributed in 

all three recovery units. With a total of 

20 populations distributed across the 

species’ range, we conclude that the 

rough popcornflower will be able to 

withstand catastrophic events. 

TABLE 10—FUTURE VIABILITY OF ROUGH POPCORNFLOWER UNDER THE MOST LIKELY SCENARIO, FUTURE SCENARIO B 

Viability elements Expected condition 

Population Resilience ........................... Protected populations (≥ 10) meet or exceed criterion of ≥ 5,000 individual stems and show stable or 

positive demographic trends. The total population number is 20. Stable or increasing population 

counts occur 7 out of 10 years. 

Species Redundancy ........................... Redundancy is provided by having 20 populations present across the range to withstand catastrophic 

events. 

Species Representation ....................... 20 populations, distributed across the range of the species, would provide genetic and ecological diversity for the species. No evidence of inbreeding depression. 

Overall Viability ..................................... Moderate: The species is able to adapt to climate change, and species receives adequate monitoring to 

inform management needs. Species requires continued management. 

For species representation, rough 

popcornflower populations are expected 

to be well distributed across all three 

recovery units and the Umpqua 

Management Area. We expect genetic 

diversity to be maintained in the 

foreseeable future because there has 

been no evidence of inbreeding 

depression or genetic drift detected in 

any of the populations (Amsberry and 

Meinke 2017, p. 2). 

Collectively, our analysis of the 

resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation under this scenario 

indicates that the viability of the rough 

popcornflower is not likely to be 

significantly reduced over the next 30 

years. 

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. 

Conservation Efforts and Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

Rough popcornflower is a 

conservation-reliant species, meaning 

that the species will require continued 

conservation efforts to survive due to 

continuous encroachment from natural 

seral succession (USFWS 2010, p. 30). 

Since listing the species in 2000, we 

have coordinated with local, State, and 

Federal stakeholders on conservation 

actions for the species, some of which 

we supported with funding. 

Mowing in rough popcornflower 

habitat to control competing native and 

nonnative plant species, and subsequent 

outplanting of rough popcornflower, has 

occurred regularly at several sites. Other 

conservation actions include fencing to 

protect populations from anthropogenic 

disturbance; population introductions 

and augmentations; and stakeholder 

workshops in which species needs, 

recovery targets, and habitat 

conservation were discussed to raise 

landowner awareness. Agencies and 

property owners who have made 

commitments to protect or manage 

rough popcornflower and its habitat are 

the City of Sutherlin, Oregon; Douglas 

Soil and Water Conservation District, 

Oregon; Oregon Department of 

Agriculture (ODA), Native Plant 

Conservation Program; the BLM; the 

Native Plant Society of Oregon, Umpqua 

Valley Chapter; and The Nature 

Conservancy. 

In the 2007 City of Sutherlin 

Conservation Agreement and 

Conservation Plan (ODA 2007, entire), 

the cooperators (the Service, the City of 

Sutherlin, ODA, the Umpqua Valley 

Chapter of the Native Plant Society of 

Oregon, the Sutherlin Stampede 

Association, and the Sutherlin 

Blackberry Festival, Inc.) agreed to the 

following measures: 

• Prohibit activities that would 

disturb or destroy existing populations 

of rough popcornflower, or their habitat, 

on land owned or managed by the City 

of Sutherlin; 

• Contract or coordinate 

appropriately timed surveys for new 

populations of rough popcornflower on 

city-owned or -managed land prior to 

initiating ground-disturbing projects; 

• Contact the ODA Native Plant 

Conservation Program if a new 

population of rough popcornflower is 

found during a pre-project survey; 

cooperate with the ODA Native Plant 

Conservation Program to develop 

conservation-based alternatives to 

proposed projects that would impact 

rough popcornflower populations or 

their habitat; and 

• Cooperate with the ODA Native 

Plant Conservation Program to 

implement a management plan 

promoting the conservation of the 

populations of rough popcornflower at 

the Red Rock Park (formerly Timber 

Days Grounds). 

Signatories of the agreement include 

the Service, the City of Sutherlin, ODA, 

the Umpqua Valley Chapter of the 

Native Plant Society of Oregon, the 

Sutherlin Stampede Association, and 

the Sutherlin Blackberry Festival, Inc. 

Since 2007, implementation of this 

agreement has provided fencing to 

protect rough popcornflower 

populations, reduced competitive and 

invasive species, and increased 

population numbers. This agreement 

was updated in 2023. In the updated 

agreement, entitled ‘‘Conservation 

Agreement for Rough Popcornflower,’’ 

the City of Sutherlin agreed to continue 

to protect the plant and to extend the 

protection to Ford’s Pond, a property 

acquired after the original signing in 

2007. The 2023 agreement also allows 

introduction of the species at Ford’s 

Pond (USFWS 2023c, p. 8). 

The biological opinion on the North 

Bank Habitat Management Area issued 

by the Service in 2001 evaluated the 

effects of proposed management actions 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
99822 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

and conservation measures conducted 

by the BLM for three rough 

popcornflower populations occurring in 

the management area (USFWS 2001, p. 

15). Proposed management actions 

included manual and mechanical 

removal of competitive vegetation and 

the use of integrated pest management 

techniques to control noxious weeds. 

Proposed conservation measures 

included retaining existing populations 

and introducing additional populations 

into suitable habitat. To date, the BLM 

has consistently implemented these 

management actions and conservation 

measures, and the BLM is expected to 

continue to maintain and enhance 

habitat for this species into the future. 

The Oregon Department of 

Transportation (ODOT) has established 

the Special Management Areas program 

to protect State-listed and federally 

listed endangered and threatened plant 

species identified on ODOT rights-ofway (ODOT 2017, p. 4). Special 

Management Areas are marked with 

signs that instruct ODOT maintenance 

crews on allowable activities. ODOT 

entered a statewide habitat conservation 

plan (HCP) with the Service in 2017 

(USFWS 2017, entire). Under the HCP, 

the Special Management Areas identify 

the known populations of rare plants 

along ODOT rights-of-way that they 

have agreed to avoid impacting. In most 

cases, only periodic maintenance is 

necessary in Special Management Areas, 

and site-specific restrictions have been 

developed to protect listed species. 

All federally listed plants in Oregon 

are also protected by State law under 

the Oregon Endangered Species Act, 

and their protection and conservation 

are administered by the ODA. The 

Oregon Endangered Species Act protects 

many other plant species in addition to 

those protected under the Federal 

Endangered Species Act. All State and 

municipal agencies, including City of 

Sutherlin, Douglas County, Douglas Soil 

and Water Conservation Service, and 

ODOT, must consult with ODA when a 

proposed action on land owned or 

leased by the State, or for which the 

State holds a recorded easement, has the 

potential to appreciably reduce the 

likelihood of the survival or recovery of 

any listed plant species. 

While we do not have a specific 

agreement in place with The Nature 

Conservancy that guarantees a 

commitment to future management, 

they have actively managed the rough 

popcornflower habitat at their property 

(the Popcornswale preserve) since 1995, 

by monitoring populations, controlling 

nonnative and invasive species, 

managing habitat by reducing tree cover, 

mowing, and augmenting the 

population with seeding. The Nature 

Conservancy has continued to manage 

the Popcornswale preserve multiple 

times a year since 1995, and is expected 

to continue these efforts. 

These and other conservation efforts 

have increased the number of protected 

sites and vastly improved the number of 

plants in the overall population (from 

7,000 to over 800,000). Currently, 11 of 

the 18 known populations throughout 

the species’ range are under Federal, 

State, municipal, or land trust 

protections offering indefinite 

protection from habitat conversion to 

other uses. The remaining 7 populations 

(approximately 84 percent of the total 

number of individuals) do not have 

formal commitments for the long-term 

beneficial management of rough 

popcornflower but are benefitting from 

voluntary management practices 

employed by land management agencies 

and private landowners. 

Determination of Rough 

Popcornflower’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 primary 

threats to rough popcornflower, since 

the time of listing, have been the 

destruction and/or alteration of habitat 

by development and hydrological 

changes (e.g., wetland fills, draining, 

construction), competition from native 

and nonnative plant species, impacts 

due to climate change (e.g., winter 

flooding, drier summer soils, and 

decreased fruit production), and lack of 

(or noncompliance with) regulatory 

mechanisms. The best available 

information does not indicate that 

overcollection (Factor B) or herbivory 

(Factor C) are threats to the viability of 

the rough popcornflower. Our current 

analysis also indicates that the habitat 

threats (Factor A) and threats from the 

inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms 

(Factor D) have decreased since the time 

of listing, while climate change (Factor 

E) related threats have increased. 

Habitat-related threats (destruction 

and/or alteration of habitat and 

competition from native and nonnative 

plant species), identified as drivers of 

rough popcornflower’s status, are still 

present on the landscape; however, their 

magnitude and scope have decreased 

from historical levels and have been 

offset by a variety of management and 

conservation measures by many 

conservation partners since the rough 

popcornflower was listed as an 

endangered species (see 65 FR 3866; 

January 25, 2000), and these 

conservation actions continue today 

(USFWS 2021, p. 25 and appendix 3). 

Improvements in habitat management 

practices and extensive habitat 

restoration have been implemented, 

which have improved population 

resiliency and redundancy at several 

sites. Increased public awareness of the 

species has resulted in increased 

stewardship across lands with rough 

popcornflower populations and 

improved regulatory compliance. 

Greater understanding and compliance 

along with improvements in habitat 

management practices and extensive 

habitat restoration have helped 

ameliorate threats to the species, 

resulting in population increases and 

greater distribution. A majority of the 

rough popcornflower population sites 

(12 of 18) are protected by public 

ownership or managed to benefit the 

species; with these site protections and 

increased public knowledge of the 

species, compliance with regulatory 

mechanisms has increased significantly. 

At the time of listing, rough 

popcornflower was known to exist in 

only 8 populations totaling 7,000 plants. 

There are currently 18 known 

populations totaling more than 800,000 

plants. Although a majority (700,000) of 

the plants are within a single 

population, there are 17 other 

populations comprising more than 

100,000 rough popcornflower plants 

distributed across the range of the 

species. Although the plants and 

populations are not distributed 

precisely as identified in recovery plan 

downlisting criteria (USFWS 2019, pp. 

4–6), the population size (both the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 99823 

number of plants and the physical area 

covered) in two of the three recovery 

units and the additional recovery 

management area exceed the target 

population size by unit/area, and six of 

the populations have stable and/or 

increasing trends. Our viability analysis 

determined that the species currently 

has high resiliency, good redundancy, 

and sufficient representation (USFWS 

2021, pp. 32–41). Thus, after assessing 

the best available information, we 

conclude that the rough popcornflower 

is not in danger of extinction throughout 

all of its range. 

We therefore proceed with 

determining whether the rough 

popcornflower is likely to become 

endangered within the foreseeable 

future throughout all of its range. 

The best available information 

indicates that, at the species level, the 

most influential factors affecting rough 

popcornflower into the future are 

habitat-related threats (destruction and/ 

or alteration of habitat and competition 

from native and nonnative plant 

species) (Factor A) and climate change 

(Factor E), which will likely cause more 

winter flooding, drier summer soils, and 

decreased fruit production. In our 

analysis of future viability (USFWS 

2021, pp. 41–47), under Scenarios A 

and B, we project the species’ resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation to be 

stable or increasing within the next 30 

years. While a continuation of current 

conservation efforts as modeled under 

Scenario B is most likely, 7 of the 18 

known populations (approximately 84 

percent of the total number of plants) do 

not have formal commitments for longterm beneficial management of rough 

popcornflower and continued beneficial 

management is not assured. 

Additionally, under Scenario C, we 

project the species’ resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation to 

diminish within the next 30 years. 

Although this scenario is considered the 

least likely to occur, diminished habitat 

conditions along with reduced 

management actions and agency 

commitments are plausible and would 

likely to lead to long-term demographic 

declines, reductions in the number of 

populations, and reduced genetic 

diversity. 

Thus, after assessing the best available 

information, we conclude that rough 

popcornflower is not currently in 

danger of extinction but is likely to 

become in danger of extinction within 

the foreseeable future 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. The 

court in Center for Biological Diversity 

v. Everson, 435 F. Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 

2020) (Everson), vacated the provision 

of the Final Policy on Interpretation of 

the Phrase ‘‘Significant Portion of Its 

Range’’ in the Endangered Species Act’s 

Definitions of ‘‘Endangered Species’’ 

and ‘‘Threatened Species’’ (hereafter 

‘‘Final Policy’’; 79 FR 37578, July 1, 

2014) that provided that if the Service 

determines that a species is threatened 

throughout all of its range, the Service 

will not analyze whether the species is 

endangered in a significant portion of its 

range. 

Therefore, we proceed to evaluating 

whether the species is endangered in a 

significant portion of its range—that is, 

whether there is any portion of the 

species’ range for which both (1) the 

portion is significant; and (2) the species 

is in danger of extinction in that 

portion. Depending on the case, it might 

be more efficient for us to address the 

‘‘significance’’ question or the ‘‘status’’ 

question first. We can choose to address 

either question first. Regardless of 

which question we address first, if we 

reach a negative answer with respect to 

the first question that we address, we do 

not need to evaluate the other question 

for that portion of the species’ range. 

Following the court’s holding in 

Everson, we now consider whether there 

are any significant portions of the 

species’ range where the species is in 

danger of extinction now (i.e., 

endangered). In undertaking this 

analysis for rough popcornflower, we 

choose to address the status question 

first—we consider information 

pertaining to the geographic distribution 

of both the species and the threats that 

the species faces to identify portions of 

the range where the species may be 

endangered. 

We evaluated the range of the rough 

popcornflower to determine if the 

species is in danger of extinction in any 

portion of its range. The range of a 

species can theoretically be divided into 

portions in an infinite number of ways. 

We focused our analysis on portions of 

the species’ range that may meet the 

definition of an endangered species. For 

rough popcornflower, we considered 

whether the threats or their effects on 

the species are greater in any 

biologically meaningful portion of the 

species’ range than in other portions 

such that the species is in danger of 

extinction now in that portion. As 

discussed above, we divided the range 

of the rough popcornflower in several 

ways (e.g., populations, recovery units) 

for the purposes of our viability 

analyses. We divide the range into three 

recovery units (Sutherlin Creek, 

Yoncalla Creek, and Callapooya Creek) 

that correspond to drainage basins 

within the Lower North Umpqua 

system, and represent groups of 

populations which share phenotypic 

similarities and are potentially 

genetically similar to one another. This 

scale is appropriate for considering 

whether the species may be in danger of 

extinction in any portion of the range. 

We examined the following threats: 

habitat loss and fragmentation, small 

population size, native and invasive 

plant encroachment, fire, and climate 

change, including cumulative effects. 

We considered the effects of these 

threats on the rough popcornflower 

within each of the three recovery units. 

As discussed above, through recovery 

efforts from multiple stakeholders, the 

rough popcornflower has increased to 

over 883,154 plants in 18 populations. 

In each recovery unit there are at least 

two populations that meet or exceed the 

resiliency criterion size of 5,000 

individuals exceeding a patch size of 

5,382 ft2 (500 m2), indicating they have 

a high probability of persistence over 

the next 30 years. 

The rough popcornflower has a 

current distribution that is analogous to 

its historical range in all three recovery 

units (USFWS 2021, p. 39). Near-term 

threats are similar for all populations 

distributed throughout the recovery 

units. The rough popcornflower is a 

conservation reliant species, and in each 

recovery unit populations receive some 

form of habitat management in the form 

of mowing, grazing, prescribed burning, 

or invasive plant control to address the 

near-term threats (USFWS 2021, p. 38). 

Given the distribution of resilient 

populations across recovery units, the 

uniformity of the near-term threats to 

the species within each unit and 

ongoing conservation measures 

addressing those threats, there is no one 

recovery unit that has a different status 

from its range-wide status. In summary, 

we found no portion of the rough 

popcornflower’s range where threats are 

impacting individuals differently from 

how they are affecting the species 

elsewhere in its range, or where the 

biological condition of the species 

differs from its condition elsewhere in 

its range such that the status of the 

species in that portion does not differ 

from any other portion of the species’ 

range. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
99824 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Therefore, no portion of the species’ 

range provides a basis for determining 

that the species is in danger of 

extinction in a significant portion of its 

range, and we determine that the 

species is likely to become in danger of 

extinction within the foreseeable future 

throughout all of its range. This does not 

conflict with the courts’ holdings in 

Desert Survivors v. U.S. Department of 

the Interior, 321 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 

1070–74 (N.D. Cal. 2018) and Center for 

Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. 

Supp. 3d 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017) 

because, in reaching this conclusion, we 

did not apply the aspects of the Final 

Policy, including the definition of 

‘‘significant’’ that those court decisions 

held were invalid. 

Determination of Status 

Based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available, we 

determine that the rough popcornflower 

meets the Act’s definition of a 

threatened species. Therefore, we 

propose to downlist the rough 

popcornflower as a threatened species 

in accordance with sections 3(20) and 

4(a)(1) of the Act. 

Protective Regulations Under Section 

4(d) of the Act 

Section 4(d) of the Act contains two 

sentences. The first sentence states that 

the Secretary shall issue such 

regulations as she deems necessary and 

advisable to provide for the 

conservation of species listed as 

threatened species. Conservation is 

defined in the Act to mean the use of 

all methods and procedures which are 

necessary to bring any endangered 

species or threatened species to the 

point at which the measures provided 

pursuant to the Act are no longer 

necessary. Additionally, the second 

sentence of section 4(d) of the Act states 

that the Secretary may by regulation 

prohibit with respect to any threatened 

species any act prohibited under section 

9(a)(1), in the case of fish or wildlife, or 

section 9(a)(2), in the case of plants. 

With these two sentences in section 

4(d), Congress delegated broad authority 

to the Secretary to determine what 

protections would be necessary and 

advisable to provide for the 

conservation of threatened species, and 

even broader authority to put in place 

any of the section 9 prohibitions, for a 

given species. 

The courts have recognized the extent 

of the Secretary’s discretion under this 

standard to develop rules that are 

appropriate for the conservation of a 

species. For example, courts have 

upheld, as a valid exercise of agency 

authority, rules developed under section 

4(d) that included limited prohibitions 

against takings (see Alsea Valley 

Alliance v. Lautenbacher, 2007 WL 

2344927 (D. Or. 2007); Washington 

Environmental Council v. National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 2002 WL 

511479 (W.D. Wash. 2002)). Courts have 

also upheld 4(d) rules that do not 

address all of the threats a species faces 

(see State of Louisiana v. Verity, 853 

F.2d 322 (5th Cir. 1988)). As noted in 

the legislative history when the Act was 

initially enacted, ‘‘once an animal is on 

the threatened list, the Secretary has an 

almost infinite number of options 

available to [her] with regard to the 

permitted activities for those species. 

[She] may, for example, permit taking, 

but not importation of such species, or 

[she] may choose to forbid both taking 

and importation but allow the 

transportation of such species’’ (H.R. 

Rep. No. 412, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. 

1973). 

The provisions of this species’ 

proposed protective regulations under 

section 4(d) of the Act are one of many 

tools that we would use to promote the 

conservation of the rough 

popcornflower. The proposed protective 

regulations would apply only if and 

when we make final the reclassification 

of the rough popcornflower as a 

threatened species. Nothing in 4(d) rules 

change in any way the recovery 

planning provisions of section 4(f) of the 

Act, the consultation requirements 

under section 7 of the Act, or the ability 

of the Service to enter into partnerships 

for the management and protection of 

the rough popcornflower. 

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. 

Examples of discretionary actions for 

the rough popcornflower that may be 

subject to consultation procedures 

under section 7 are management of 

Federal lands administered by the BLM, 

as well as actions that require a Federal 

permit (such as a permit from the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers under section 

404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 

1251 et seq.)) or actions funded by 

Federal agencies such as 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. 

These requirements are the same for 

a threatened species regardless of what 

is included in its 4(d) rule. Section 7 

consultation is required for Federal 

actions that ‘‘may affect’’ a listed species 

regardless of whether take caused by the 

activity is prohibited or excepted by a 

4(d) rule (under application of a 

‘‘blanket rule’’ (for more information, 

see 89 FR 23919, April 5, 2024) or a 

species-specific 4(d) rule). A 4(d) rule 

does not change the process and criteria 

for informal or formal consultations and 

does not alter the analytical process 

used for biological opinions or 

concurrence letters. For example, as 

with an endangered species, if a Federal 

agency determines that an action is ‘‘not 

likely to adversely affect’’ a threatened 

species, it will require the Service’s 

written concurrence (50 CFR 402.13(c)). 

Similarly, if a Federal agency 

determines that an action is ‘‘likely to 

adversely affect’’ a threatened species, it 

will require formal consultation and the 

formulation of a biological opinion (50 

CFR 402.14(a)). Because consultation 

obligations and processes are unaffected 

by 4(d) rules, we may consider 

developing tools to streamline future 

intra-Service and inter-Agency 

consultations for actions that result in 

forms of take that are not prohibited by 

the 4(d) rule (but that still require 

consultation). These tools may include 

consultation guidance, online 

consultation processes via the Service’s 

digital project planning tool 

(Information for Planning and 

Consultation; https://ipac.ecosphere.

fws.gov/), template language for 

biological opinions, or programmatic 

consultations. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 99825 

Exercising the Secretary’s authority 

under section 4(d) of the Act, we are 

applying the protections for the rough 

popcornflower through our regulations 

at 50 CFR 17.71(a). In our April 5, 2024, 

final rule revising those regulations (89 

FR 23919, at 23922–23923), we found 

that applying those regulations as a 

whole satisfies the requirement in 

section 4(d) of the Act to issue 

regulations deemed necessary and 

advisable to provide for the 

conservation of threatened species. We 

have not identified any ways in which 

a protective regulation for this 

threatened species would need to differ 

from the regulations at 50 CFR 17.71(a) 

in order to contain the protections that 

are necessary and advisable to provide 

for the conservation of the rough 

popcornflower. Therefore, the 

regulations at 50 CFR 17.71(a) apply. 

This means that except as provided in 

a permit issued pursuant to 50 CFR 

17.72, all of the provisions of 50 CFR 

17.61 for endangered plants, except 

§ 17.61(c)(2) through (4), apply to the 

rough popcornflower, and the 

provisions of 50 CFR 17.71(b) 

concerning exceptions for certain 

entities also apply to the species. 

Required Determinations 

Clarity of the Rule 

We are required by 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. 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

Regulations adopted pursuant to 

section 4(a) of the Act are exempt from 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and do 

not require an environmental analysis 

under NEPA. We published a notice 

outlining our reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register 

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This 

includes listing, delisting, and 

reclassification rules, as well as critical 

habitat designations and speciesspecific protective regulations 

promulgated concurrently with a 

decision to list or reclassify a species as 

threatened. The courts have upheld this 

position (e.g., Douglas County v. 

Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995) 

(critical habitat); Center for Biological 

Diversity v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 2005 WL 2000928 (N.D. Cal. 

Aug. 19, 2005) (concurrent 4(d) rule)). 

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), E.O. 13175 

(Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments), and the 

Department of the Interior’s manual at 

512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 

responsibility to communicate 

meaningfully with federally recognized 

Tribes on a government-to-government 

basis. In accordance with Secretary’s 

Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American 

Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal 

Trust Responsibilities, and the 

Endangered Species Act), we readily 

acknowledge our responsibilities to 

work directly with Tribes in developing 

programs for healthy ecosystems, to 

acknowledge that Tribal lands are not 

subject to the same controls as Federal 

public lands, to remain sensitive to 

Indian culture, and to make information 

available to Tribes. We will continue to 

work with Tribal entities during the 

development of a final downlisting 

determination for the rough 

popcornflower. 

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 Oregon Fish 

and Wildlife 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 Oregon Fish 

and Wildlife 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, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service proposes 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 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– 

1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise 

noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 17.12(h) by revising the 

entry for ‘‘Plagiobothrys hirtus’’ under 

FLOWERING PLANTS on the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Plants to 

read as follows: 

§ 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
99826 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 11, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Scientific name Common name Where listed Status Listing citations and applicable rules 

Flowering Plants 

*******

Plagiobothrys hirtus ........ Rough popcornflower .... Wherever found ............ T ................ [Federal Register citation when published as a 

final rule]; 

*******

Gary Frazer, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–28351 Filed 12–10–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1