```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 12 (Tuesday, January 21, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7043-7056]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-01117]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2024-0083; FXES1111090FEDR-256-FF09E21000]
RIN 1018-BG16

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species 
Status for Big Red Sage

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
list the big red sage (Salvia pentstemonoides), a plant species from 
central Texas, as an endangered species under the Endangered Species 
Act of

[[Page 7044]]

1973, as amended (Act). This determination also serves as our 12-month 
finding on a petition to list the big red sage. After a review of the 
best available scientific and commercial information, we find that 
listing the species is warranted. If we finalize this rule as proposed, 
it would add this species to the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Plants and extend the Act's protections to the species. We have 
determined that designating critical habitat for the big red sage is 
not prudent.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before 
March 24, 2025. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59 
p.m. eastern time on the closing date. We must receive requests for a 
public hearing, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT by March 7, 2025.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R2-ES-2024-0083, 
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the 
Search button. On the resulting page, in the panel on the left side of 
the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the Proposed Rule 
box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on 
``Comment.''
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments 
Processing, Attn: FWS-R2-ES-2024-0083, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
    We request that you send comments only by the methods described 
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
    Availability of supporting materials: Supporting materials, such as 
the species status assessment report, are available on the Service's 
website at https://www.fws.gov/office/austin-ecological-services, at 
https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2024-0083, or both.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Myers, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Austin Ecological Services Field Office, 
1505 Ferguson Lane, Austin, TX 78754; telephone 512-937-7371. 
Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of 
hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or 
TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals 
outside the United States should use the relay services offered within 
their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in 
the United States. Please see Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2024-0083 on https://www.regulations.gov for a document that summarizes this proposed rule.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.), a species warrants listing if it meets the definition of an 
endangered species (in danger of extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range) or a threatened species (likely to 
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range). If we determine that a 
species warrants listing, we must list the species promptly and 
designate the species' critical habitat to the maximum extent prudent 
and determinable. We have determined that the big red sage meets the 
Act's definition of an endangered species; therefore, we are proposing 
to list it as such. Listing a species as an endangered or threatened 
species can be completed only by issuing a rule through the 
Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking process (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.).
    What this document does. We propose to list the big red sage as an 
endangered species under the Act.
    The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a 
species is an endangered or threatened species because of any of five 
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) 
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its 
continued existence. We have determined that big red sage is endangered 
due to the following threats: herbivory (Factor C), collection and 
inappropriate propagation (Factor B), land use changes (Factor A), and 
effects from climate change such as flash floods and erosion (Factor 
E).
    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the Secretary of the Interior 
(Secretary), to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, to 
designate critical habitat concurrent with listing. We have determined 
that designating critical habitat for big red sage is not prudent 
because one of the main drivers of the species' status is direct 
mortality and loss of genetic integrity resulting from the collection 
of seeds and entire plants from wild populations (Factor B). The threat 
of collection potentially imperils all populations whose geographic 
locations are publicized and accessible to the public. Since we have 
determined that the species is threatened by taking or other human 
activity and identification of critical habitat can be expected to 
increase the degree of such threat to the species, we determine that 
designation of critical habitat is not prudent for the species.

Information Requested

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request 
comments or information from other governmental agencies, Native 
American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other 
interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek 
comments concerning:
    (1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
    (a) Biological or ecological requirements of the species, including 
habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
    (b) Genetics and taxonomy;
    (c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns 
and the locations of any additional populations of this species;
    (d) Historical and current population levels, and current and 
projected trends; and
    (e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its 
habitat, or both.
    (2) Threats and conservation actions affecting the species, 
including:
    (a) Factors that may be affecting the continued existence of the 
species, which may include habitat modification or destruction, 
overutilization, disease, predation, the inadequacy of existing 
regulatory mechanisms, or other natural or manmade factors;
    (b) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning 
any threats (or lack thereof) to this species; and
    (c) Existing regulations or conservation actions that may be 
addressing threats to this species.
    (3) Additional information concerning the historical and current 
status of this species.
    (4) Information regarding our determination that designating 
critical

[[Page 7045]]

habitat for the big red sage is not prudent.
    Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as 
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to 
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
    Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or 
opposition to, the action under consideration without providing 
supporting information, although noted, do not provide substantial 
information necessary to support a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of 
the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an 
endangered or a threatened species must be made solely on the basis of 
the best scientific and commercial data available, and section 4(b)(2) 
of the Act directs that the Secretary shall designate critical habitat 
on the basis of the best scientific data available.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you 
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
    If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your 
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will 
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy 
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the 
top of your document that we withhold this information from public 
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We 
will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov.
    Our final determination may differ from this proposal because we 
will consider all comments we receive during the comment period as well 
as any information that may become available after this proposal. Based 
on the new information we receive (and, if relevant, any comments on 
that new information), we may conclude that the species is threatened 
instead of endangered, or we may conclude that the species does not 
warrant listing as either an endangered species or a threatened 
species. In our final rule, we will clearly explain our rationale and 
the basis for our final decision, including why we made changes, if 
any, that differ from this proposal.

Public Hearing

    Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this 
proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified 
in DATES. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule a public hearing on this 
proposal, if requested, and announce the date, time, and place of the 
hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the 
Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the 
hearing. We may hold the public hearing in person or virtually via 
webinar. We will announce any public hearing on our website, in 
addition to the Federal Register. The use of virtual public hearings is 
consistent with our regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3).

Previous Federal Actions

    On June 18, 2007, Forest Guardians (now Wild Earth Guardians) 
petitioned the Service to list 475 species in the southwestern United 
States, including big red sage, as endangered or threatened species 
under the Act. On December 16, 2009, the Service published in the 
Federal Register (74 FR 66866) a partial 90-day petition finding that 
the petition provided substantial information indicating that the big 
red sage may warrant listing under the Act. This document constitutes 
the 12-month finding on the petition to list the big red sage under the 
Act.

Peer Review

    A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for 
the big red sage. The SSA team was composed of Service biologists, in 
consultation with other species experts. The SSA report represents a 
compilation of the best scientific and commercial data available 
concerning the status of the species, including the impacts of past, 
present, and future factors (both negative and beneficial) affecting 
the big red sage.
    In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the 
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22, 
2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review in 
listing actions under the Act (https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peer-review-policy-directors-memo-2016-08-22.pdf), we 
solicited independent scientific review of the information contained in 
the big red sage SSA report. We sent the SSA report to four independent 
peer reviewers and received three responses. Results of this structured 
peer review process can be found at https://www.regulations.gov. In 
preparing this proposed rule, we incorporated the results of these 
reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA report, which is the foundation 
for this proposed rule.

Summary of Peer Reviewer Comments

    As discussed above in Peer Review, we received comments from three 
peer reviewers on the draft SSA report. We reviewed all comments we 
received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new 
information regarding the contents of the SSA report. The peer 
reviewers generally concurred with our methods and conclusions, and 
provided additional information, clarifications, and suggestions, 
including clarifications in terminology and discussions of genetics and 
hydrology, and other editorial suggestions. Otherwise, no substantive 
changes to our analysis and conclusions within the SSA report were 
deemed necessary, and peer reviewer comments are addressed in version 
1.1 of the SSA report.

I. Proposed Listing Determination

Background

    A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of big 
red sage is presented in the SSA report (version 1.1; Service 2023, pp. 
2-11).
    Big red sage is a perennial herbaceous plant in the mint family 
(Lamiaceae) that occurs along streams and narrow ravines in the Edwards 
Plateau of central Texas. The historical range of the species includes 
Bandera, Bexar, Comal, Gillespie, Kendall, Kerr, Real, Uvalde, and 
Wilson Counties. Most big red sage plants occur on bluffs, ledges, and 
slopes along watercourses and ravines where groundwater slowly seeps 
through limestone to the surface.
    Its long, crimson flowers with purplish bases adorn 5-foot-tall 
stalks that arise from rosettes of shiny, dark green leaves (Service 
2023, p. 2). Big red sage flowers opportunistically from May through 
November in response to rainfall and the persistence of soil moisture 
(Service 2023, p. 6). The flowers are specifically pollinated by 
hummingbirds (Wester 2007, pp. 40, 72; Cibolo Center for Conservation 
2021, p. 4); black-chinned hummingbirds (Archilochus alexandri) are the 
most abundant species throughout the range and flowering period of the 
big red sage (Service 2023, p. 8). Hummingbirds may forage within 
discrete territories they establish and defend around concentrated 
nectar sources; alternatively, they may also forage in a more dispersed 
pattern along traplines, in which rewarding nectar sources are

[[Page 7046]]

visited repeatedly in a predictable sequence (Tello-Ramos et al. 2015, 
pp. 812-813). Trapline foraging behavior has been documented among 
black-chinned hummingbirds (Arizmendi and Ornelas 1990, p. 177). Based 
on the trapline forage range of other hummingbird species (Gill 1988, 
entire), we estimate that black-chinned hummingbirds foraging along 
consistent, regular routes may cross-pollinate individuals of big red 
sage that are separated by as much as 0.5 to 1.0 kilometers (km) (0.3 
to 0.6 miles (mi)), and thus are important vectors for the species' 
gene flow. However, the species' fecundity is low, and small, inbred 
populations produce few viable seeds (Service 2023, p. 9). Individual 
plants can live at least 10 years, and the rootstocks may branch to 
form multiple rosettes that appear to be separate individuals; 
therefore, the effective population sizes may be less than the numbers 
of individuals counted in censuses (Service 2023, pp. 9-10).
    The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department's (TPWD) Texas Natural 
Diversity Database (TXNDD) maintains geographic and population data of 
plant and animal species of conservation concern in Texas. Data for 
each species are organized by standard geographical units for 
populations and habitats called ``source features'' (SFs) and ``element 
occurrences'' (EOs). SFs and EOs are geographic locations where a 
species has been recorded one or more times. They may be displayed as 
points, lines, or polygons buffered by their estimated geographic 
precision. SFs may be combined into a single E.O. if they are separated 
by less than 1 km (0.6 mi) in the wild (NatureServe 2002, p. 26). 
Therefore, each E.O. may contain one or more SFs. For the big red sage 
and other plant species of conservation concern, we use the E.O. 
standard as the unit of analysis because it ensures consistency among 
all the partners concerned with the conservation and management of a 
species, and this method involves rigorous scientific investigations 
spanning many years. We use numbers to identify the EOs for the big red 
sage, and all EOs are associated with unique identifiers in the TXNDD 
(Service 2023, pp. 26-27). Big red sage has been documented at 18 EOs 
(see table 1, below). Please refer to the SSA report for a full list of 
EOs and their respective SFs for the big red sage (Service 2023, pp. 
26-27).

                                   Table 1--Summary of the EOs of Big Red Sage
    [TXNDD ranks each EO as historical (H) or extant (E). Those marked as historical may not have population
                                                   estimates.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Most recent
     EO No.            Site name                 County             TXNDD rank     population      Year of most
                                                                                    estimate      recent survey
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............  Barron Creek.......  Kendall..................  H              ..............  ...............
2...............  Guadalupe River at   Kerr.....................  H                          50             1894
                   Kerrville.
3...............  Verde Creek south    Bandera/Kerr.............  H              ..............  ...............
                   of Kerrville.
4...............  Turtle Creek south   Kerr.....................  E                           0             2013
                   of Kerrville.
5...............  Cibolo Creek near    Kendall..................  E                         170             2013
                   Boerne.
7...............  Sutherland Springs.  Wilson...................  H              ..............  ...............
8...............  Frio Waterhole.....  Kerr.....................  H              ..............  ...............
10..............  Confluence of Bear   Gillespie................  E                           0             2013
                   Creek and
                   Pedernales River.
11..............  Can Creek and Hale   Bandera/Real.............  E                           4             2013
                   Hollow at Lost
                   Maples State
                   Natural Area.
14..............  Frederick Creek at   Kendall..................  E                         401             2013
                   Interstate 10.
15..............  Big Joshua Creek...  Kendall..................  E                           0             2013
16..............  Wilson Hollow......  Real.....................  E                           2             1991
19..............  Comanche Springs on  Bexar....................  H              ..............  ...............
                   Salado Creek.
20..............  North Fork           Kerr.....................  E                           8             2016
                   Guadalupe River
                   above Farm to
                   Market Road 1340.
21..............  Blue Hole..........  Real.....................  E                          15             2018
22..............  Pedernales River at  Gillespie................  E                           0             2013
                   Friedrich Road.
23..............  South Grape Creek    Gillespie................  E                           0             2013
                   east of Luckenbach.
24..............  Canyon near          Kendall..................  E                          54             2013
                   Frederick Creek.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regulatory and Analytical Framework

Regulatory Framework

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing 
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth 
the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered 
species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for 
threatened species, and designating critical habitat for endangered and 
threatened species.
    The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a species that is in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is likely to 
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we 
determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened 
species because of any of the following factors:
    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused 
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued 
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for 
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as 
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative 
effects or may have positive effects.
    We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or 
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively 
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions 
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct 
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration 
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat'' 
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action 
or condition or the action or condition itself.
    However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not 
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory

[[Page 7047]]

definition of an ``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In 
determining whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate 
all identified threats by considering the species' expected response 
and the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and 
conditions that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, 
population, and species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected 
effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of 
the threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative 
effect of the threats in light of those actions and conditions that 
will have positive effects on the species, such as any existing 
regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines 
whether the species meets the Act's definition of an ``endangered 
species'' or a ``threatened species'' only after conducting this 
cumulative analysis and describing the expected effect on the species.
    The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which 
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for 
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis, which is 
further described in the 2009 Memorandum Opinion on the foreseeable 
future from the Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor (M-
37021, January 16, 2009; ``M-Opinion,'' available online at https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/uploads/M-37021.pdf). 
The foreseeable future extends as far into the future as the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (hereafter, 
the Services) can make reasonably reliable predictions about the 
threats to the species and the species' responses to those threats. We 
need not identify the foreseeable future in terms of a specific period 
of time. We will describe the foreseeable future on a case-by-case 
basis, using the best available data and taking into account 
considerations such as the species' life-history characteristics, 
threat projection timeframes, and environmental variability. In other 
words, the foreseeable future is the period of time over which we can 
make reasonably reliable predictions. ``Reliable'' does not mean 
``certain''; it means sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of 
confidence in the prediction, in light of the conservation purposes of 
the Act.

Analytical Framework

    The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive 
biological review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding 
the status of the species, including an assessment of the potential 
threats to the species. The SSA report does not represent our decision 
on whether the species should be proposed for listing as an endangered 
or threatened species under the Act. However, it does provide the 
scientific basis that informs our regulatory decisions, which involve 
the further application of standards within the Act and its 
implementing regulations and policies.
    To assess big red sage viability, we used the three conservation 
biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and representation 
(Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly, resiliency is the 
ability of the species to withstand environmental and demographic 
stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, warm or cold years); redundancy 
is the ability of the species to withstand catastrophic events (for 
example, droughts, large pollution events); and representation is the 
ability of the species to adapt to both near-term and long-term changes 
in its physical and biological environment (for example, climate 
conditions, pathogens). In general, species viability will increase 
with increases in resiliency, redundancy, and representation (Smith et 
al. 2018, p. 306). Using these principles, we identified the species' 
ecological requirements for survival and reproduction at the 
individual, population, and species levels, and described the 
beneficial and risk factors influencing the species' viability.
    The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages. 
During the first stage, we evaluated the individual species' life-
history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical 
and current condition of the species' demographics and habitat 
characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at 
its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making 
predictions about the species' responses to positive and negative 
environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout all of these 
stages, we used the best available information to characterize 
viability as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the 
wild over time, which we then used to inform our regulatory decision.
    The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from 
the SSA report; the full SSA report can be found at Docket No. FWS-R2-
ES-2024-0083 on https://www.regulations.gov.

Summary of Biological Status and Threats

    In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the 
species and its resources, and the threats that influence the species' 
current and future condition, in order to assess the species' overall 
viability and the risks to that viability. For the big red sage to 
maintain viability, its populations must be highly resilient with 
sufficient redundancy and representation. Several factors influence the 
resiliency of big red sage populations, including: (1) herbivory, (2) 
land use changes, (3) collection and inappropriate propagation (i.e., 
breeding in captivity using closely related wild-sourced individuals 
that results in inbreeding and decreased genetic diversity), and (4) 
effects from climate change. These resiliency factors and habitat 
elements are discussed in detail in the SSA report (Service 2023, 
entire) and are summarized here.

Species Needs

Soil Moisture
    Big red sage growth and flowering require the maintenance of soil 
moisture through rainfall and/or seepage through fissures and cavities 
in the limestone substrate. Flowering occurs opportunistically from May 
through November in response to rainfall and the presence of soil 
moisture (Service 2023, p. 6). Big red sage individuals establish on 
bluffs, ledges, and slopes along watercourses (including first-order 
streams) where soil moisture is relatively persistent (Correll and 
Johnston 1978, p. 1368; Pasztor 2004, p. 1; Poole et al. 2007, p. 437). 
Big red sage populations most often occur within 165 feet (50 meters) 
of watercourses and where slopes are greater than 25 percent (Taylor 
and O'Kennon 2013, pp. 3-5). The species is endemic to the riparian 
ravines in the Edwards Plateau, and it occurs in specific positions 
where intermittent seepage occurs. Additionally, portions of EOs appear 
to obtain moisture from a major aquifer, the Edwards-Trinity or 
Trinity, at least when aquifer levels are high (Service 2023, pp. 37-
38).
Minimum Viable Population
    Highly resilient populations of big red sage must also have stable 
or increasing demographic trends over time. This means that recruitment 
of new individuals is at least as great as the mortality rate, and 
populations must be large enough to have a high probability of 
surviving a prescribed period of time. Species that have more 
populations distributed over a broader geographic

[[Page 7048]]

range have a greater chance of surviving catastrophic events (Shaffer 
and Stein 2000, pp. 308-310). Species or populations are highly 
resilient when the probability of persisting 100 years is greater than 
90 percent (Mace and Lande 1991, p. 151). This metric of population 
resilience is called minimum viable population (MVP) (Pavlik 1996, p. 
137). We estimate that highly resilient populations have an MVP of at 
least 1,600 individuals of reproductive age (Service 2023, pp. 32-33). 
MVP for a species varies based on different traits of that species, 
including, but not limited to, longevity (i.e., perennial vs. annual), 
growth form (i.e., woody vs. herbaceous), fecundity, and longevity of 
seed viability. We determined that the MVP of 1,600 individuals for big 
red sage based on the specific traits of big red sage, which fall in 
the moderate range of several of these categories (Pavlik 1996, p. 
137). For example, big red sage is perennial, occurs in old-growth 
vegetation, plants may produce a moderate number of ramets (physically 
separate but genetically identical individuals) that branch off the 
original root system, it is herbaceous, has low fecundity, individual 
survivorship is low, and environmental variation is high (Service 2024, 
p. 33). Therefore, populations require a moderately high MVP to persist 
for 100 years.
Individual and Population Connectivity
    Small, reproductively isolated populations are susceptible to the 
loss of genetic diversity, to genetic drift, and to inbreeding (Barrett 
and Kohn 1991, pp. 3-30). Additionally, the loss of genetic diversity 
may reduce the ability of a species or population to resist pathogens 
and parasites, to adapt to changing environmental conditions, or to 
colonize new habitats (Service 2023, p. 34). Conversely, populations 
that pass through a genetic bottleneck may subsequently benefit through 
the elimination of harmful alleles. Nevertheless, the net result of the 
loss of genetic diversity is likely to be a loss of fitness and lower 
chance of survival of populations and of the species.
    Additionally, the seeds of big red sage have a very limited 
dispersal range (Service 2023, p. 34). The forage range for the black-
chinned hummingbird, an important pollinator of big red sage, 
determines the typical limits of gene flow between individuals (Service 
2023, p. 34). We estimate that this limit may be from 0.5 to 1.0 km 
(0.3 to 0.6 mi) (Service 2023, p. 34). When the limits of gene flow are 
unknown, we apply the TXNDD's use of the NatureServe default minimum 
separation distance of 1.0 km (0.6 mi) to delineate populations 
(NatureServe 2020, p. 4). Therefore, big red sage populations must have 
sufficient numbers of individuals and populations that are not too 
closely related or too widely dispersed for effective pollination, 
outcrossing, and seed production.

Risk Factors for Big Red Sage

    We reviewed the potential risk factors (i.e., threats, stressors) 
that could be currently affecting the big red sage. In this proposed 
rule, we will discuss only those factors in detail that could 
meaningfully impact the status of the species. The primary risk factors 
(i.e., threats) affecting the status of big red sage are herbivory 
(Factor C), collection and inappropriate propagation (Factor B), land 
use changes (Factor A), and effects from climate change (Factor E).
Herbivory
    Big red sage is palatable to browsing herbivores, such as white-
tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), introduced ungulates, and goats 
(Capra hircus). Within large portions of the range of the big red sage, 
the numbers of white-tailed deer are about three times greater than the 
recommended sustainable deer population levels (Morrow 2020, p. 8; 
Armstrong and Young 2000, p. 20; Service 2023, p. 36). In addition to 
native white-tailed deer, several species of nonnative ungulate game 
animals have been introduced in the Edwards Plateau (Mungall and 
Sheffield 1994, pp. 188-194). Some introduced ungulates have escaped 
and established large breeding populations in the wild, compounding the 
browsing pressure from native white-tailed deer. Additionally, ranchers 
also introduced large numbers of goats in Real County and elsewhere in 
the Edwards Plateau beginning in the early 20th century (Minton 2019, 
unpaginated). Since goats are voracious browsers and nimble scalers of 
rocky slopes, large numbers of goats likely had a severe impact on 
populations of big red sage before conservationists began searching for 
the species.
    Browsing from unsustainably large populations of deer has 
eradicated big red sage from all known habitats except areas that are 
inaccessible to deer, such as bluffs and steep slopes (Taylor and 
O'Kennon 2013, p. 10). Herbivory has already resulted in the decline of 
two of the seven remaining EOs of big red sage (EOs 11 and 14) (Ward 
2010, p. 2). Therefore, herbivory, and thus mortality of individual 
plants, by native and introduced ungulates has severely affected all 
populations throughout the species' range and is a continuing severe 
threat throughout the range.
Land Use Changes
    Current rates of human population growth are stable or decreasing 
in Real, Bandera, and Uvalde Counties; increasing moderately in Kerr 
and Gillespie Counties; and increasing rapidly in Kendall County 
(Service 2023, pp. 83-84). Although bluffs and steep slopes are not 
suitable for most forms of land development, many big red sage 
populations occur near watercourses where human activities are 
concentrated (Service 2023, p. 30). Construction and maintenance of 
houses, roads, bridges, and other recreational land uses may impact 
these populations of big red sage.
    All or portions of four EOs (2, 10, 19, 22) have been lost to 
development or land use changes that altered the native plant community 
(Taylor and O'Kennon 2013, pp. 6, 8, 9; TXNDD 2019, pp. 3, 4, 15, 16, 
35, 36, 43). In these cases, some individuals were likely to have been 
destroyed when habitats were converted to buildings or pavement, or 
when nonnative vegetation was introduced in developed areas, while 
others may have died as a result of other drastic changes to the 
habitat.
    In addition to losses that are directly attributable to urban and 
residential development, an increase in the amount of impermeable 
surfaces or a loss of vegetative cover may reduce the infiltration of 
water into the ground; this in turn may reduce the availability and 
constancy of seep moisture that sustains big red sage individuals and 
populations. The drying of these seepage areas may impact big red sage 
populations because of the reduction of necessary soil moisture for 
sustaining plant and population growth (Taylor and O'Kennon 2013, pp. 
10-11). Three of the remaining seven EOs (EOs 5, 14, and 24) are 
currently at the greatest risk to development. Based on the extent of 
land use changes to known populations and current rates of human 
population growth in the encompassing counties, we estimate that this 
threat currently affects 25 percent of all extant populations. 
Therefore, land use changes are a continuing, potentially severe threat 
throughout the species' range.
Collection From the Wild and the Loss of Genetic Integrity Due to 
Inappropriate Propagation
    Big red sage is used in landscapes and pollinator gardens, both 
within its native range in Texas as well as throughout North America 
and elsewhere. It has been propagated and

[[Page 7049]]

sold by several commercial nurseries since 1986 (Enquist 1987, p. 5). 
Seeds and entire plants have been collected from the wild for 
landscaping and commercial propagation from at least two EOs (14 and 
20) that are accessible to the public (Collier 1989, pp. 1-2; Taylor 
and O'Kennon 2013, p. 11). E.O. 14, the source of at least one 
propagated population (Hoban and Garner 2019, p. 1), was widely known 
and easily accessible to the public. In 1988, the State Department of 
Highways and Public Transportation placed signs at E.O. 14 stating, 
``Non Mowing Area,'' ``Wildflower Research Area,'' and ``Property of 
State of Texas, Penalty for Private Use.'' On June 27, 1989, State 
Department of Highways and Public Transportation maintenance personnel 
found the signs pulled out of the ground with cut flowering stems of 
the big red sage placed on top of them, with evidence of digging and 
cutting of the plants (Collier 1989, pp. 1-2). Therefore, there is 
confirmation that collection contributed to the decline of that 
population, along with other possible causes, including a major flood, 
competition from invasive plants, and ungulate browsing (Service 2023, 
p. 10). Other EOs, such as 11 and 21, are vulnerable to collection from 
the wild; undocumented populations may also have been discovered and 
depleted by collectors. Although the habitat of E.O. 11 is intact and 
is in high condition, and the site is protected as a State Natural 
Area, this population has declined 87 percent over 31 years (Service 
2023, pp. 22, 65). This decline can be attributed to illicit collection 
because the collection sites have been publicized. However, additional 
factors may have also contributed to this decline, including herbivory 
by over-abundant white-tailed deer and introduced ungulates, and the 
demographic and genetic consequences of small population sizes. Because 
collection and sale of the big red sage has been ongoing for decades, 
we conclude that collection from wild populations is a potentially 
severe, continuing threat to all populations that occur in sites that 
are known to and accessible by the public.
    Inappropriate propagation is also a threat to big red sage. 
Propagation, in general, is a useful tool for plant conservation. 
However, there are several potential risks if conducted without regard 
for the conservation of a species' genetic integrity. Propagated plant 
populations often arise from a very small number of founders collected 
from the wild, and propagated populations may lose alleles, and thus 
experience a decline in genetic diversity through genetic drift (the 
random reduction in frequency of alleles or the complete loss of 
alleles). Genetic drift occurs most rapidly when the number of breeding 
individuals is small.
    Additionally, propagated populations may also experience a decrease 
in genetic diversity through deliberate or inadvertent selection. 
Selection leads to non-random changes in allele frequencies and non-
random losses of alleles. Deliberate selection occurs when seeds are 
selected from plants with specific desirable traits, such as size, 
form, or flower color, and are used to propagate subsequent 
generations. Inadvertent selection occurs as an unintended consequence 
of propagation. For example, growers typically retain only the 
individuals that germinate readily and then use those individuals as 
future seed sources; consequently, propagated populations frequently 
lose the seed dormancy mechanisms that benefit the survival of wild 
populations. Each successive propagated generation incrementally 
changes the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool, including the 
complete loss of alleles. Ultimately, both deliberate and inadvertent 
selection lead to plants that are more fit in cultivation but less 
likely to persist if transplanted back into the wild (Service 2023, p. 
39).
    Through propagation, it is possible to create unlimited numbers of 
individuals that, once released to the wild, may interbreed with and 
overwhelm the much smaller wild populations with a very narrow sample 
of the species' original genetic diversity, thus causing the loss of 
rare wild genotypes. Release of individuals bred in cultivation may 
also introduce genes that reduce fitness (e.g., loss of seed dormancy) 
into the wild population, as discussed above. Finally, 
horticulturalists and plant collectors may bring big red sage into 
proximity with other Salvia species that are geographically separated 
in the wild; if these taxa can breed with each other, this could lead 
to hybridization. An escape of hybridized Salvia species into the wild 
populations could lead to the extinction of the original wild genotype 
through interbreeding.
    We have no evidence that the progeny of propagated individuals of 
big red sage have colonized wild population sites. Nevertheless, 
propagated big red sage populations have very low genetic diversity 
(Hoban and Garner 2019, p. 4). We conclude that inappropriate 
propagation is a potentially severe threat of unknown extent to the 
genetic integrity of the remaining wild populations and the species.
Effects From Climate Change
    The Summary for Policy Makers in the Sixth Assessment Report of the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that global surface 
temperatures will continue to increase until at least the mid-century 
under all emissions scenarios considered; the frequency and intensity 
of hot extremes, marine heatwaves, and agricultural and ecological 
droughts will increase in some regions; and heavy precipitation events 
will become more frequent (IPCC 2021, pp. 16-20). The U.S. Global 
Climate Research Program (USGCRP) Fourth National Climate Assessment 
reports that average annual temperatures from 1986 to 2016 have 
increased in the Southern Great Plains, which includes the range of big 
red sage, by 0.42 degrees Celsius ([deg]C) (0.76 degrees Fahrenheit 
([deg]F)), compared to the 1901 to 1960 baseline (USGCRP 2017, p. 187). 
The frequency of heavy precipitation events in the Southern Great 
Plains has increased from 1901 to 2016 and 1948 to 2016 (USGCRP 2017, 
pp. 20 -212) and is projected to continue to increase under both 
moderate and high emission scenarios.
    Because the big red sage only occurs where there is seep moisture 
along the slopes and bluffs of canyons and ravines, it requires 
relatively persistent soil moisture. Additionally, to evaluate how a 
changing climate may affect big red sage, we used the National Climate 
Change Viewer to compare past and projected future climate conditions 
for the Upper Guadalupe River watershed in Texas. The National Climate 
Change Viewer projects a decrease in soil water storage and an increase 
in summer evaporative deficit by 2050 to 2074, indicating that soil 
moisture will become more limiting to plant growth, and thus will 
restrict the big red sage to a smaller amount of suitable habitat 
(Service 2023, p. 42). Although climate models do not consistently 
project how total rainfall may change, the ongoing trend toward greater 
extremes in rainfall will likely increase with rising temperatures. We 
expect that mortality will increase and recruitment will decrease 
during longer, more severe droughts. Furthermore, the increasing 
frequency and intensity of heavy rainfall events will also exacerbate 
the threat of flash flooding. Flash floods have already caused 
population declines at EOs 5 and 14, and EO 15 was completely destroyed 
by a landslide when the bluff above it collapsed, which may have been 
caused by flooding along Big Joshua Creek. Flood waters may uproot 
individual plants or wash away their substrates, or the plants may be 
buried under silt and

[[Page 7050]]

debris (Service 2023, p. 40). Many EOs that occur along watercourses 
have individuals established below the high-water level that will 
likely be destroyed by a flood event at some point in the future 
(Taylor and O'Kennon 2013, p. 10). We conclude that the direct and 
indirect effects of climate change and associated flash floods and bank 
erosion represent a potentially severe threat to the portions of big 
red sage populations that are close to watercourses and below the high-
water level of floods throughout the species' range.
Summary
    Several historical and ongoing influences, including herbivory, 
land use changes, collection, and inappropriate propagation, may affect 
the viability of the big red sage. The most pervasive threats to the 
species are herbivory and collection, which have already resulted in 
the extirpation and decline of several populations. Additionally, 
climate change is expected to exacerbate impacts from all 
aforementioned threats.

Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms

    TPWD has previously supported two grants that promoted the 
conservation of the big red sage. The 2012 Texas Conservation Action 
Plan identified a research priority to study the distribution of and 
threats to the big red sage. This led to a wildlife conservation grant 
to update the species' status (Taylor and O'Kennon 2013, entire). The 
TPWD Conservation License Plate Program supported an investigation of 
the species' conservation genetics in 2019 (Hoban and Garner 2019, pp. 
1-2). This genetic study was conducted at EO 11 located at Lost Maples 
State Natural Area, which is protected by TPWD. Although the habitat is 
intact and the site is protected as a State Natural Area, this 
population has declined 87 percent over 31 years. Factors that may have 
contributed to this decline include herbivory by overabundant white-
tailed deer and introduced ungulates, as well as the demographic and 
genetic consequences of a small population size. Since the collection 
sites have been publicized, it is also possible that illicit collection 
may also have contributed to this decline. TPWD is currently supporting 
a third project, funded through the Service's cooperative endangered 
species conservation fund (see 16 U.S.C. 1535(i)). The objectives of 
this project are to seek access to private lands and conduct surveys 
for new populations, collect seeds from wild populations, and propagate 
seeds of wild populations to increase seed available for reintroduction 
and augmentation of populations, scientific research, and seed banking.
    One of the largest populations of the big red sage occurs at Cibolo 
Bluffs (EO 5), which is owned by Cibolo Center for Conservation and is 
monitored annually by volunteers of the Cibolo Center for Conservation 
and trustees of Cibolo Preserve. In 2005, there was a big red sage 
reintroduction at Cibolo Center for Conservation (formerly Cibolo 
Nature Center) from seeds obtained from the Lady Bird Johnson 
Wildflower Center and collected from the wild (likely Cibolo Bluffs). 
Results from this reintroduction suggest that the big red sage may be 
relatively resilient to the wide extremes in annual rainfall that 
characterize the Edwards Plateau (Service 2023, p. 46). However, none 
of the individuals that were planted outside of exclosures survived, 
indicating that herbivory by overabundant white-tailed deer is a severe 
threat to the survival of the big red sage. While the protected 
individuals declined over time, they also produced large numbers of 
seeds, with new big red sage individuals found growing nearby along a 
creek in 2013. In summary, this small pilot reintroduction demonstrates 
that it is possible to establish new population sources or to augment 
existing populations, provided that the sites are protected from white-
tailed deer and other ungulates.

Cumulative Effects

    We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of 
the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have 
analyzed the cumulative effects of identified threats and conservation 
actions on the species. To assess the current and future condition of 
the species, we evaluate the effects of all the relevant factors that 
may be influencing the species, including threats and conservation 
efforts. Because the SSA framework considers not just the presence of 
the factors, but to what degree they collectively influence risk to the 
entire species, our assessment integrates the cumulative effects of the 
factors and replaces a standalone cumulative-effects analysis.

Species Condition

    We used the U.S. Geological Survey's hydrologic unit code watershed 
boundaries to delineate four representation areas of the big red sage: 
Guadalupe, Cibolo, Frio-Sabinal, and Pedernales. The current condition 
of the big red sage considers the risks to the populations previously 
and currently. For each EO, we developed and assigned categories for 
the species' demographic and habitat conditions to measure population 
resiliency of the big red sage. Our analysis was conducted at the EO 
level, but some individual SFs may have different conditions than the 
EO in which it falls.
    Seven EOs (EO numbers 5, 11, 14, 16, 20, 21, and 24) are extant and 
seven EOs (EO numbers 2, 4, 10, 15, 19, 22, and 23) are extirpated 
(Service 2024, p. 50). There are 4 EOs that were reliably recorded in 
the past for which there have been no recent visits, or the exact 
geographic location is unknown (EO numbers 1, 3, 7, and 8). We 
considered these previously documented populations where we could not 
determine if they are currently extant or extirpated as ``non-
contributing'' (i.e., not contributing to the overall viability of the 
species), and they are not included in the overall condition assessment 
of the species. Therefore, we consider there to be 14 known historical 
populations contributing to our understanding of the overall viability 
of the species.
    We used MVP as the metric to determine the population condition 
(i.e., resiliency) for each EO (Pavlik 1996, p. 137). MVP is an 
estimate of population size needed for a population to have a high 
probability of surviving 100 years, which for the big red sage is 1,600 
individuals (Service 2023, p. 33). The estimate of MVP is based only on 
numbers of mature individuals (those that have flowered at least once 
or are judged capable of flowering) because juveniles that die before 
they reproduce do not contribute to the effective population size or 
future genetic diversity.
    We categorized the population condition of each EO as high, 
moderate, low, or extirpated. EOs are in high condition when they have 
the estimated MVP of 1,600 mature individuals, meaning the populations 
would likely persist for 100 years. Moderate condition is a population 
of at least 100 individuals, which is a population size that is likely 
to persist for at least 10 years and has the ability to have increased 
resiliency through conservation and management. We adopt 10 years as 
the threshold for moderate condition because 10 years is the observed 
lifespan of an individual and it is long enough for both recruitment 
and mortality to occur and for demographic trends to emerge (Taylor 
2021, pers. comm.). Low condition is a population size fewer than 100 
individuals that is not likely to persist 10 years and is unlikely to 
increase resilience without

[[Page 7051]]

augmentation as well as conservation and management.
    The evaluation of habitat conditions of the EOs includes the amount 
and percent of good and excellent habitat, the presence of gaps between 
areas of good or excellent habitat, the proximity of urban and 
residential development, and the abundance of forested ravines and 
tributaries that connect to the EOs (Service 2023, p. 54). High habitat 
condition was categorized by having, on average, abundant potential 
habitat, few (if any) significant habitat gaps, low proximity to or 
absence of nearby urban and residential development, and abundant 
tributary ravines. Moderate habitat condition was categorized by 
having, on average, relatively abundant potential habitat, large or 
several gaps between suitable habitat areas, some proximity to urban 
and residential development, and few forested ravines and tributaries. 
Low habitat condition was categorized by having, on average, low 
amounts of potential habitat, many or large significant habitat gaps, 
large amounts or very nearby urban and residential development, and few 
to no nearby forested ravines and tributaries. We categorized the 
overall condition of each EO as the lesser of the population condition 
and habitat condition (see table 2, below). There are several 
populations that were reliably recorded in the past for which there 
have been no recent visits, or the exact geographic location is 
unknown. We considered these previously documented populations where we 
could not determine if they are currently extant or extirpated as 
``non-contributing'' (i.e., not contributing to the overall viability 
of the species), and they are not included in the overall condition 
assessment of the species.

 Table 2--Summary of Representation Areas, Population and Habitat Conditions, and Overall Resilience of the EOs
                                                 of Big Red Sage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Population                              Overall EO
       Representation area        Element occurrence       condition       Habitat condition      resilience
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guadalupe or Pedernales.........  1.................  Non-Contributing..  Not Determined....  Non-Contributing.
Guadalupe.......................  2.................  Extirpated........  Developed.........  Extirpated.
Guadalupe.......................  3.................  Non-Contributing..  Not Determined....  Non-Contributing.
Guadalupe.......................  4-Upper Turtle      Non-Contributing..  High..............  Non-Contributing.
                                   Creek.
Guadalupe.......................  4-Middle Turtle     Non-Contributing..  Low...............  Non-Contributing.
                                   Creek.
Guadalupe.......................  4-Lower Turtle      Extirpated........  Low...............  Extirpated.
                                   Creek.
Guadalupe.......................  15................  Extirpated........  Not Determined....  Extirpated.
Guadalupe.......................  20................  Moderate..........  High..............  Moderate.
Unknown.........................  7.................  Non-Contributing..  Unknown...........  Non-Contributing.
Cibolo..........................  5-Upstream Cibolo   Non-Contributing..  High..............  Non-Contributing.
                                   Creek.
Cibolo..........................  5-Midstream Cibolo  Non-Contributing..  Moderate..........  Non-Contributing.
                                   Creek.
Cibolo..........................  5-Downstream        Moderate..........  High..............  Moderate.
                                   Cibolo Creek.
Cibolo..........................  14................  Moderate..........  Moderate..........  Moderate.
Cibolo..........................  24................  Moderate..........  Moderate..........  Moderate.
Frio-Sabinal....................  8.................  Non-Contributing..  High..............  Non-Contributing.
Frio-Sabinal....................  11................  Low...............  High..............  Low.
Frio-Sabinal....................  16................  Low...............  High..............  Low.
Frio-Sabinal....................  21................  Low...............  High..............  Low.
Pedernales......................  10................  Extirpated/Non-     Not Determined....  Extirpated/Non-
                                                       Contributing.                           Contributing.
Pedernales......................  22................  Extirpated........  Not Determined....  Extirpated.
Pedernales......................  23................  Extirpated........  Not Determined....  Extirpated.
Headwaters Salado Creek.........  19................  Extirpated........  Developed.........  Extirpated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The species' total known populations have declined by 46 percent 
since 1988. Twenty-eight percent of known EOs have been completely 
extirpated. All known EOs in the Pedernales representation area are 
extirpated. The Guadalupe representation area has only one remaining 
E.O., which is in moderate condition. The Frio-Sabinal representation 
area has three EOs, all of which are in low condition. The Cibolo 
representation area has three EOs in moderate condition that are 
currently isolated, or nearly isolated, from each other by urban, 
residential, and recreational development.
    Redundancy for the big red sage is characterized by having 
multiple, sufficiently resilient populations distributed across the 
spring systems historically occupied by the species for the species to 
be able to withstand catastrophic events. Species that have redundant, 
sufficiently resilient populations distributed across their historical 
ranges are less susceptible to the risk of extinction from catastrophic 
events. Of the 14 known historical populations of big red sage, 7 have 
become extirpated. Therefore, redundancy has been significantly reduced 
from historical levels, making the species more vulnerable to 
catastrophic events such as flash floods and prolonged drought.
    Representation reflects a species' capacity to adapt to changing 
environmental conditions over time and can be characterized by genetic 
and ecological diversity within and among populations. We describe 
species representation for the big red sage as genetic diversity both 
within and among populations. Current populations of big red sage have 
very low overall species diversity and small population sizes and are 
likely to continue to experience declines in genetic diversity and 
increased inbreeding (Hoban and Garner 2019, pp. 3-4). Although the big 
red sage has critically low genetic diversity, wild populations 
maintain greater genetic diversity than propagated populations (Hoban 
and Garner 2019, pp. 3-4). When coupled with small population sizes, 
big red sage populations may experience an increased loss in genetic 
variation, resulting in a population's reduced ability to survive and 
reproduce (i.e., inbreeding depression) (Hoban and Garner 2019, p. 4). 
The big red sage occurs only in small, isolated groups of individuals, 
which are susceptible to the loss of genetic diversity, to genetic 
drift, and to inbreeding (Barrett and

[[Page 7052]]

Kohn 1991, pp. 3-30). This is evident in propagated populations of big 
red sage with known low genetic diversity that did not produce viable 
seeds (Hoban and Garner 2019, p. 4). Because of the species' low 
genetic diversity, its ability to withstand stochastic events and adapt 
to changing environmental conditions is reduced.
    In summary, of the 14 known historical populations, 7 are 
extirpated and 7 are extant. This reduced redundancy makes the species 
more susceptible to catastrophic events such as floods and prolonged 
drought. Furthermore, of the extant populations, only four populations 
are expected to persist at least 10 years and three populations are 
likely to become extirpated within 10 years. The remaining populations 
are small, are isolated, and have low genetic diversity, making them 
less able to withstand stochastic events.
    As part of the SSA, we also developed two future condition 
scenarios to capture the range of uncertainties regarding future 
threats and the projected responses by the big red sage. Because we 
determined that the current condition of the big red sage is consistent 
with an endangered species (see Determination of the Big Red Sage's 
Status, below), we are not presenting the results of the future 
scenarios in this proposed rule. Please refer to the SSA report 
(Service 2023, pp. 78-98) for the full analysis of future scenarios.

Determination of the Big Red Sage's Status

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining 
whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a 
threatened species. The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a 
species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion 
of its range and a ``threatened species'' as a species likely to become 
an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we determine 
whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a 
threatened species because of any of the following factors: (A) The 
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its 
habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, 
scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 
manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

Status Throughout All of Its Range

    After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the 
cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1) 
factors, we find that the big red sage has declined from known 
historical levels in size and number of populations. Our analysis 
revealed several factors that caused this decline and pose a meaningful 
risk to the viability of the species. These threats are primarily 
related to habitat changes (Factor A), including land use changes; 
overutilization (Factor B) by collection and inappropriate propagation; 
herbivory (Factor C); and the effects of climate change (Factor E).
    Of the 14 known historical populations, 7 are extirpated and 7 are 
extant. This decline in number of populations from known historical 
levels indicates a reduced level of redundancy, making the big red sage 
more vulnerable to catastrophic events such as flash floods. Of the 
seven extant populations, only four populations are expected to persist 
at least 10 years and three are likely to become extirpated within 10 
years. These levels of resiliency of the remaining populations exhibit 
a lowered ability of the species to withstand environmental and 
demographic stochasticity. Additionally, overall genetic diversity of 
the species is low, meaning that the species may not be adequately able 
to adapt to both near-term and long-term changes in its physical and 
biological environment (i.e., the species may lack adaptive capacity).
    The most pervasive threats to the species are herbivory and 
collection and inappropriate propagation. Browsing from unsustainably 
large populations of deer has eradicated big red sage from all known 
habitats except areas that are inaccessible to deer, such as bluffs and 
steep slopes (Taylor and O'Kennon 2013, p. 10). Herbivory has already 
resulted in the decline of several EOs of big red sage, including EOs 
11 and 14 (Ward 2010, p. 2). Seeds and entire plants have been 
collected from the wild for landscaping and commercial propagation from 
at least two EOs (14 and 20) that are accessible to the public (Collier 
1989, pp. 1-2; Taylor and O'Kennon 2013, p. 11). E.O. 14 was widely 
known and easily accessible to the public, and collection contributed 
to the decline of that population, which remains extant.
    These threats, in addition to land use changes and effects from 
climate change, have reduced available habitat for the big red sage and 
resulted in the direct and indirect destruction of individual plants 
and entire populations. All or portions of four EOs have been lost to 
development or land use changes where individual plants were likely to 
have been destroyed when habitats were converted to buildings or 
pavement, or when nonnative vegetation was introduced in developed 
areas, while others may have died as a result of other drastic changes 
to the habitat (Taylor and O'Kennon 2013, pp. 6, 8, 9; TXNDD 2019, pp. 
3, 4, 15, 16, 35, 36, 43). Effects from climate change such as flash 
floods have already caused population declines at three EOs, one of 
which was completely destroyed. Flood waters may uproot individual 
plants or wash away their substrates, or the plants may be buried under 
silt and debris (Service 2023, p. 40).
    In summary, the big red sage is very susceptible to extirpations 
from catastrophic events and has limited adaptive capacity. The number 
of known populations has already been reduced from 14 to 7 populations 
due to herbivory, collection and inappropriate propagation, land use 
changes, and effects from climate change, all of which remain active 
threats to existing populations. The species is in danger of extinction 
due to the aforementioned threats, which have historically impacted, 
and are currently impacting, the species and reducing its viability 
across its range. We do not find the species meets the Act's definition 
of a threatened species because the species has already shown declines 
in the number and resiliency of populations. Half of known populations 
have already become extirpated due to the threats mentioned above, and 
all remaining populations are at risk due to the same threats. Because 
current redundancy is reduced from known historical levels, and 
representation is limited due to low genetic diversity, the species is 
vulnerable to catastrophic and stochastic events. Thus, after assessing 
the best scientific and commercial data available, we determine that 
the big red sage is in danger of extinction throughout all of its 
range.

Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range

    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so 
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion 
of its range. We have determined that the big red sage is in danger of 
extinction throughout all of its range and accordingly did not 
undertake an analysis of any significant portion of its range. Because 
the big red sage warrants listing as endangered

[[Page 7053]]

throughout all of its range, our determination does not conflict with 
the decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 435 F. 
Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 2020), because that decision related to significant 
portion of the range analyses for species that warrant listing as 
threatened, not endangered, throughout all of their range.

Determination of Status

    Our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information indicates that the big red sage meets the Act's definition 
of an endangered species. Therefore, we propose to list the big red 
sage as an endangered species in accordance with sections 3(6) and 
4(a)(1) of the Act.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened species under the Act include recognition as a listed 
species, planning and implementation of recovery actions, requirements 
for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. 
Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and 
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, foreign 
governments, private organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages 
cooperation with the States and other countries and calls for recovery 
actions to be carried out for listed species. The protection required 
by Federal agencies, including the Service, and the prohibitions 
against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.
    The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered 
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The 
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these 
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of 
the Act. Section 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop and 
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and 
threatened species. The goal of this process is to restore listed 
species to a point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and 
functioning components of their ecosystems.
    The recovery planning process begins with development of a recovery 
outline made available to the public soon after a final listing 
determination. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation 
of urgent recovery actions while a recovery plan is being developed. 
Recovery teams (composed of species experts, Federal and State 
agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders) may be 
established to develop and implement recovery plans. The recovery 
planning process involves the identification of actions that are 
necessary to halt and reverse the species' decline by addressing the 
threats to its survival and recovery. The recovery plan identifies 
recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for 
reclassification from endangered to threatened (``downlisting'') or 
removal from protected status (``delisting''), and methods for 
monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework 
for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates 
of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Revisions of the plan may 
be done to address continuing or new threats to the species, as new 
substantive information becomes available. The recovery outline, draft 
recovery plan, final recovery plan, and any revisions will be available 
on our website as they are completed (https://www.fws.gov/program/endangered-species), or from our Austin Ecological Services Field 
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the 
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal 
agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, 
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat 
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive 
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The 
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on 
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires 
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
    If this species is listed, funding for recovery actions will be 
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State 
programs, and cost-share grants for non-Federal landowners, the 
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition, 
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the State of Texas would be eligible 
for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote the 
protection or recovery of the big red sage. Information on our grant 
programs that are available to aid species recovery can be found at: 
https://www.fws.gov/service/financial-assistance.
    Although the big red sage is only proposed for listing under the 
Act at this time, please let us know if you are interested in 
participating in recovery efforts for this species. Additionally, we 
invite you to submit any new information on this species whenever it 
becomes available and any information you may have for recovery 
planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Section 7 of the Act is titled, ``Interagency Cooperation,'' and it 
mandates all Federal action agencies to use their existing authorities 
to further the conservation purposes of the Act and to ensure that 
their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 
listed species or adversely modify critical habitat. Regulations 
implementing section 7 are codified at 50 CFR part 402.
    Section 7(a)(2) states that each Federal action agency shall, in 
consultation with the Secretary, ensure that any action they authorize, 
fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence 
of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of designated critical habitat. Each Federal agency shall 
review its action at the earliest possible time to determine whether it 
may affect listed species or critical habitat. If a determination is 
made that the action may affect listed species or critical habitat, 
formal consultation is required (50 CFR 402.14(a)), unless the Service 
concurs in writing that the action is not likely to adversely affect 
listed species or critical habitat. At the end of a formal 
consultation, the Service issues a biological opinion, containing its 
determination of whether the Federal action is likely to result in 
jeopardy or adverse modification.
    In contrast, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies 
to confer with the Service on any action which is likely to jeopardize 
the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed under the 
Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat proposed to be designated for such species. Although the 
conference procedures are required only when an action is likely to 
result in jeopardy or adverse modification, action agencies may 
voluntarily confer with the Service on actions that may affect species 
proposed for listing or critical habitat proposed to be designated. In 
the event that the subject species is listed or the relevant critical 
habitat is designated, a conference opinion may be adopted as a 
biological opinion and serve as compliance with section 7(a)(2) of the 
Act.
    Examples of discretionary actions for the big red sage that may be 
subject to conference and consultation procedures under section 7 are 
land management or other landscape-altering activities on Federal lands 
as well as actions on State, Tribal, local, or private lands that 
require a Federal permit (such as a

[[Page 7054]]

permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the 
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service 
under section 10 of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action 
(such as funding from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal 
Aviation Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). 
Federal actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat--and 
actions on State, Tribal, local, or private lands that are not 
federally funded, authorized, or carried out by a Federal agency--do 
not require section 7 consultation. Federal agencies should coordinate 
with the local Service Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT) with any specific questions on section 7 consultation and 
conference requirements.
    The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of 
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered plants. 
The prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, and the Service's 
implementing regulations codified at 50 CFR 17.61, make it illegal for 
any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to commit, 
to attempt to commit, to solicit another to commit or to cause to be 
committed any of the following with an endangered plant: (1) import to, 
or export from, the United States; (2) remove and reduce to possession 
from areas under Federal jurisdiction; maliciously damage or destroy on 
any such area; or remove, cut, dig up, or damage or destroy on any 
other area in knowing violation of any law or regulation of any State 
or in the course of any violation of a State criminal trespass law; (3) 
deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign 
commerce, by any means whatsoever and in the course of a commercial 
activity; or (4) sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign 
commerce. Certain exceptions to these prohibitions apply to employees 
or agents of the Service, other Federal land management agencies, and 
State conservation agencies.
    We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving endangered plants under certain circumstances. Service 
regulations governing permits for endangered plants are codified at 50 
CFR 17.62, and general Service permitting regulations are codified at 
50 CFR part 13. With regard to endangered plants, a permit may be 
issued for scientific purposes or for enhancing the propagation or 
survival of the species. The statute also contains certain exemptions 
from the prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.

II. Critical Habitat

Background

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
    (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the 
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which 
are found those physical or biological features
    (a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
    (b) Which may require special management considerations or 
protection; and
    (2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas 
are essential for the conservation of the species.
    Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area 
occupied by the species as an area that may generally be delineated 
around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary (i.e., 
range). Such areas may include those areas used throughout all or part 
of the species' life cycle, even if not used on a regular basis (e.g., 
migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats used periodically, 
but not solely by vagrant individuals).
    Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use 
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring 
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures 
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and 
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated 
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law 
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live 
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where 
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise 
relieved, may include regulated taking.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the requirement that each Federal action agency ensure, in 
consultation with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or 
carry out is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of designated critical habitat. The designation of 
critical habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, 
wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such 
designation also does not allow the government or public to access 
private lands. Such designation does not require implementation of 
restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by non-Federal 
landowners. Rather, designation requires that, where a landowner 
requests Federal agency funding or authorization for an action that may 
affect an area designated as critical habitat, the Federal agency 
consult with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. If the 
action may affect the listed species itself (such as for occupied 
critical habitat), the Federal agency would have already been required 
to consult with the Service even absent the designation because of the 
requirement to ensure that the action is not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of the species. Even if the Service were to 
conclude after consultation that the proposed activity is likely to 
result in destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat, 
the Federal action agency and the landowner are not required to abandon 
the proposed activity, or to restore or recover the species; instead, 
they must implement ``reasonable and prudent alternatives'' to avoid 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
    Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, 
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time 
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they 
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the 
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special 
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical 
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best 
scientific data available, those physical or biological features that 
are essential to the conservation of the species (such as space, food, 
cover, and protected habitat).
    Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, 
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical 
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a 
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the 
species.
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on 
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on 
Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in 
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information 
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R.

[[Page 7055]]

5658)), and our associated Information Quality Guidelines provide 
criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our 
decisions are based on the best scientific data available. They require 
our biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use 
of the best scientific data available, to use primary and original 
sources of information as the basis for recommendations to designate 
critical habitat.
    When we are determining which areas should be designated as 
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the 
information from the SSA report and information developed during the 
listing process for the species. Additional information sources may 
include any generalized conservation strategy, criteria, or outline 
that may have been developed for the species; the recovery plan for the 
species; articles in peer-reviewed journals; conservation plans 
developed by States and counties; scientific status surveys and 
studies; biological assessments; other unpublished materials; or 
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
    Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another 
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a 
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that 
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. 
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that 
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed 
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the 
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical 
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation 
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) regulatory 
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act 
for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened 
species; and (3) the prohibitions found in section 9 of the Act. 
Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside 
their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy 
findings in some cases. These protections and conservation tools will 
continue to contribute to recovery of the species. Similarly, critical 
habitat designations made on the basis of the best available 
information at the time of designation will not control the direction 
and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans, or 
other species conservation planning efforts if new information 
available at the time of those planning efforts calls for a different 
outcome.

Prudency Determination

    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing 
regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent 
and determinable, the Secretary shall designate critical habitat at the 
time the species is determined to be an endangered species or a 
threatened species. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that 
designation of critical habitat may not be prudent in circumstances 
such as, but not limited to, the following:
    (i) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and 
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the 
degree of such threat to the species;
    (ii) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the 
species;
    (iii) Areas within the jurisdiction of the United States provide no 
more than negligible conservation value, if any, for a species 
occurring primarily outside the jurisdiction of the United States; or
    (iv) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat.
    As discussed above, big red sage is threatened by collection and 
inappropriate propagation, and identification of critical habitat can 
be expected to increase the degree of these threats to the species. 
Because of this, we have determined that designation of critical 
habitat is not prudent. We reach this conclusion largely because of the 
pervasive threat of collection (Factor B). The threat of collection 
potentially imperils all populations whose geographic locations are 
publicized and accessible to the public. Collection results in direct 
mortality when whole plants are removed from wild sites, and seed 
collection from wild populations for propagation can reduce recruitment 
of new individuals and contribute to the decline of those populations. 
What remains is a very small number of isolated fragments of former 
populations, none of which have viable population sizes. Designation of 
critical habitat would publicize locations of the big red sage that are 
not currently publicized, which puts those populations at risk for 
collection and thus extirpation. Designation of critical habitat would 
also not provide any additional conservation benefit to the species 
because it does not establish specific land management standards or 
prescriptions and only prohibits Federal agencies from carrying out, 
funding, or authorizing actions that would destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat, whereas big red sage occurs almost entirely on 
private land. Therefore, a designation of critical habitat would not be 
advantageous for this species. Since we have determined that the big 
red sage is threatened by taking or other human activity and 
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the 
degree of such threat to the species, in accordance with 50 CFR 
424.12(a)(1), we determine that designation of critical habitat is not 
prudent for the big red sage.

Required Determinations

Clarity of the Rule

    We are required by Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 12988 and by 
the Presidential memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in 
plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:
    (1) Be logically organized;
    (2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
    (3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
    (4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
    (5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us 
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us 
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For 
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs 
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, 
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments; 59 FR 22951, May 4, 1994), E.O. 13175 (Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), the President's 
memorandum of November 30, 2022 (Uniform Standards for Tribal 
Consultation; 87 FR 74479, December 5, 2022), and the Department of the 
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with federally recognized 
Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs) on a government-to-
government basis. In accordance with Secretary's Order 3206 of June 5, 
1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust

[[Page 7056]]

Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we readily 
acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with Tribes in 
developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that Tribal 
lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to 
remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available 
to Tribes. We have determined that the big red sage does not occur on 
Tribal lands, so no Tribes would be affected if we list the species.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available 
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from 
the Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of 
the Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the Austin 
Ecological Services Field Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

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

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, 
unless otherwise noted.

0
2. In Sec.  17.12, in paragraph (h), amend the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Plants by adding an entry for ``Salvia pentstemonoides'' in 
alphabetical order under FLOWERING PLANTS to read as follows:

Sec.  17.12  Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              Listing citations
         Scientific name               Common name          Where listed         Status         and applicable
                                                                                                    rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Flowering Plants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Salvia pentstemonoides...........  big red sage.......  Wherever found.....  E               [Federal Register
                                                                                              citation when
                                                                                              published as a
                                                                                              final rule].
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2025-01117 Filed 1-17-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
```