Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules 7043 

watershed of the Amargosa River in 

Oasis Valley, Nevada. 

The petitioner also asked that we 

consider using the emergency 

provisions of the Act to list the species. 

The petition clearly identified itself as 

such and included the requisite 

identification information for the 

petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(c). 

Listing a species on an emergency basis 

is not a petitionable action under the 

Act, and the question of when to list on 

an emergency basis is left to the 

discretion of the Service. If the Service 

determines that the standard for 

emergency listing in section 4(b)(7) of 

the Act is met, the Service may exercise 

that discretion to take an emergency 

listing action at any time. Therefore, we 

are considering the July 2, 2024, petition 

as a petition to list the Oasis Valley 

speckled dace. This finding addresses 

the petition. 

Finding 

We reviewed the petition, sources 

cited in the petition, and other readily 

available information (within the 

constraints of the Act and 50 CFR 

424.14(h)(1)). We considered the 

credible information that the petition 

provided regarding effects of the threats 

that fall within factors under the Act’s 

section 4(a)(1) as potentially 

ameliorated or exacerbated by any 

existing regulatory mechanisms or 

conservation efforts. Based on our 

review of the petition and readily 

available information] regarding gold 

mining (Factor A), we find that the 

petition presents substantial scientific 

or commercial information indicating 

that listing the Oasis Valley speckled 

dace as an endangered species or a 

threatened species may be warranted. 

The petitioners also presented 

information suggesting solar energy 

development, water diversions, 

livestock grazing, wild burros, invasive 

species, climate change, and the effects 

of isolated populations may be threats to 

the Oasis Valley speckled dace We will 

fully evaluate these potential threats 

during our 12-month status review, 

pursuant to the Act’s requirement to 

review the best scientific and 

commercial information available when 

making that finding. 

The basis for our finding on this 

petition and other information regarding 

our review of the petition can be found 

as an appendix at https://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R8–ES–2024–0177 under the 

Supporting Documents section. 

Evaluation of a Petition To List 

Tennessee Bottlebrush Crayfish 

Species and Range 

Tennessee bottlebrush crayfish 

(Barbicambarus simmonsi); Lawrence 

County, Tennessee, and Lauderdale 

County, Alabama. 

Petition History 

On June 16, 2023, we received a 

petition from CBD, requesting that the 

Tennessee bottlebrush crayfish 

(Barbicambarus simmonsi) be listed as a 

threatened or endangered species and 

critical habitat be designated for this 

species under the Act. The petition 

clearly identified itself as such and 

included the requisite identification 

information for the petitioner, required 

at 50 CFR 424.14(c). This finding 

addresses the petition. 

Finding 

We reviewed the petition, sources 

cited in the petition, and other readily 

available information (within the 

constraints of the Act and 50 CFR 

424.14(h)(1)). We considered the 

credible information that the petition 

provided regarding effects of the threats 

that fall within factors under the Act’s 

section 4(a)(1) as potentially 

ameliorated or exacerbated by any 

existing regulatory mechanisms or 

conservation efforts. Based on our 

review of the petition and readily 

available information regarding habitat 

destruction and alteration from the 

effects of dams and land use practices 

including agriculture, silviculture, 

urban runoff, and wastewater treatment 

facilities (Factor A), we find that the 

petition presents substantial scientific 

or commercial information indicating 

that listing the Tennessee bottlebrush 

crayfish as an endangered species or a 

threatened species may be warranted. 

The petitioners also presented 

information suggesting overutilization 

or collection and impacts of climate 

change may be threats to the Tennessee 

bottlebrush crayfish. The petitioners 

also provided information that, despite 

the existing regulatory mechanisms, 

these potential threats are still affecting 

the species. We will fully evaluate these 

potential threats during our 12-month 

status review, pursuant to the Act’s 

requirement to review the best scientific 

and commercial information available 

when making that finding. 

The basis for our finding on this 

petition and other information regarding 

our review of the petition can be found 

at https://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2024–0101 

under the Supporting Documents 

section. 

Conclusion 

On the basis of our evaluation of the 

information presented in the petitions 

under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we 

have determined that the petitions 

summarized above for the Amargosa 

toad, Carson Valley monkeyflower, 

golden-cheeked warbler, large marble 

butterfly (including the large marble 

butterfly type subspecies), Mohave 

ground squirrel, Morrison bumble bee, 

Oasis Valley speckled dace, and 

Tennessee bottlebrush crayfish present 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that the 

petitioned actions may be warranted. 

We are, therefore, initiating status 

reviews of these species to determine 

whether the actions are warranted under 

the Act. At the conclusion of the status 

reviews, we will issue findings, in 

accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the 

Act, as to whether the petitioned actions 

are not warranted, warranted, or 

warranted but precluded by pending 

proposals to determine whether any 

species is an endangered species or a 

threatened species. 

Authors 

The primary authors of this document 

are staff members of the Ecological 

Services Program, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

Authority 

The authority for these actions is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Martha Williams, 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2025–01118 Filed 1–17–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2024–0083; 

FXES1111090FEDR–256–FF09E21000] 

RIN 1018–BG16 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Endangered Species 

Status for Big Red Sage 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
7044 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

1973, as amended (Act). This 

determination also serves as our 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/austinecological-services, at https://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R2–ES–2024–0083, or both. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Karen Myers, Field Supervisor, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Austin 

Ecological Services Field Office, 1505 

Ferguson Lane, Austin, TX 78754; 

telephone 512–937–7371. Individuals in 

the United States who are deaf, 

deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a 

speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, 

TDD, or TeleBraille) to access 

telecommunications relay services. 

Individuals outside the United States 

should use the relay services offered 

within their country to make 

international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States. Please see 

Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2024–0083 on 

https://www.regulations.gov for a 

document that summarizes this 

proposed rule. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Why we need to publish a rule. Under 

the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), a 

species warrants listing if it meets the 

definition of an endangered species (in 

danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range) or a 

threatened species (likely to become an 

endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range). If we 

determine that a species warrants 

listing, we must list the species 

promptly and designate the species’ 

critical habitat to the maximum extent 

prudent and determinable. We have 

determined that the big red sage meets 

the Act’s definition of an endangered 

species; therefore, we are proposing to 

list it as such. Listing a species as an 

endangered or threatened species can be 

completed only by issuing a rule 

through the Administrative Procedure 

Act rulemaking process (5 U.S.C. 551 et 

seq.). 

What this document does. We 

propose to list the big red sage as an 

endangered species under the Act. 

The basis for our action. Under the 

Act, we may determine that a species is 

an endangered or threatened species 

because of any of five factors: (A) The 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes; (C) disease or 

predation; (D) the inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) 

other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. We 

have determined that big red sage is 

endangered due to the following threats: 

herbivory (Factor C), collection and 

inappropriate propagation (Factor B), 

land use changes (Factor A), and effects 

from climate change such as flash floods 

and erosion (Factor E). 

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the 

Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), to 

the maximum extent prudent and 

determinable, to designate critical 

habitat concurrent with listing. We have 

determined that designating critical 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules 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-directorsmemo-2016-08-22.pdf), we solicited 

independent scientific review of the 

information contained in the big red 

sage SSA report. We sent the SSA report 

to four independent peer reviewers and 

received three responses. Results of this 

structured peer review process can be 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
7046 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

visited repeatedly in a predictable 

sequence (Tello-Ramos et al. 2015, pp. 

812–813). Trapline foraging behavior 

has been documented among blackchinned hummingbirds (Arizmendi and 

Ornelas 1990, p. 177). Based on the 

trapline forage range of other 

hummingbird species (Gill 1988, entire), 

we estimate that black-chinned 

hummingbirds foraging along 

consistent, regular routes may crosspollinate individuals of big red sage that 

are separated by as much as 0.5 to 1.0 

kilometers (km) (0.3 to 0.6 miles (mi)), 

and thus are important vectors for the 

species’ gene flow. However, the 

species’ fecundity is low, and small, 

inbred populations produce few viable 

seeds (Service 2023, p. 9). Individual 

plants can live at least 10 years, and the 

rootstocks may branch to form multiple 

rosettes that appear to be separate 

individuals; therefore, the effective 

population sizes may be less than the 

numbers of individuals counted in 

censuses (Service 2023, pp. 9–10). 

The Texas Parks and Wildlife 

Department’s (TPWD) Texas Natural 

Diversity Database (TXNDD) maintains 

geographic and population data of plant 

and animal species of conservation 

concern in Texas. Data for each species 

are organized by standard geographical 

units for populations and habitats called 

‘‘source features’’ (SFs) and ‘‘element 

occurrences’’ (EOs). SFs and EOs are 

geographic locations where a species 

has been recorded one or more times. 

They may be displayed as points, lines, 

or polygons buffered by their estimated 

geographic precision. SFs may be 

combined into a single E.O. if they are 

separated by less than 1 km (0.6 mi) in 

the wild (NatureServe 2002, p. 26). 

Therefore, each E.O. may contain one or 

more SFs. For the big red sage and other 

plant species of conservation concern, 

we use the E.O. standard as the unit of 

analysis because it ensures consistency 

among all the partners concerned with 

the conservation and management of a 

species, and this method involves 

rigorous scientific investigations 

spanning many years. We use numbers 

to identify the EOs for the big red sage, 

and all EOs are associated with unique 

identifiers in the TXNDD (Service 2023, 

pp. 26–27). Big red sage has been 

documented at 18 EOs (see table 1, 

below). Please refer to the SSA report 

for a full list of EOs and their respective 

SFs for the big red sage (Service 2023, 

pp. 26–27). 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF THE EOS OF BIG RED SAGE

[TXNDD ranks each EO as historical (H) or extant (E). Those marked as historical may not have population estimates.] 

EO No. Site name County TXNDD 

rank 

Most recent 

population 

estimate 

Year of most 

recent survey 

1 ............. Barron Creek .................................................................................. Kendall ................ H ........................ ..........................

2 ............. Guadalupe River at Kerrville .......................................................... Kerr ..................... H 50 1894 

3 ............. Verde Creek south of Kerrville ....................................................... Bandera/Kerr ....... H ........................ ..........................

4 ............. Turtle Creek south of Kerrville ....................................................... Kerr ..................... E 0 2013 

5 ............. Cibolo Creek near Boerne .............................................................. Kendall ................ E 170 2013 

7 ............. Sutherland Springs ......................................................................... Wilson ................. H ........................ ..........................

8 ............. Frio Waterhole ................................................................................ Kerr ..................... H ........................ ..........................

10 ........... Confluence of Bear Creek and Pedernales River .......................... Gillespie .............. E 0 2013 

11 ........... Can Creek and Hale Hollow at Lost Maples State Natural Area .. Bandera/Real ...... E 4 2013 

14 ........... Frederick Creek at Interstate 10 .................................................... Kendall ................ E 401 2013 

15 ........... Big Joshua Creek ........................................................................... Kendall ................ E 0 2013 

16 ........... Wilson Hollow ................................................................................. Real ..................... E 2 1991 

19 ........... Comanche Springs on Salado Creek ............................................. Bexar ................... H ........................ ..........................

20 ........... North Fork Guadalupe River above Farm to Market Road 1340 .. Kerr ..................... E 8 2016 

21 ........... Blue Hole ........................................................................................ Real ..................... E 15 2018 

22 ........... Pedernales River at Friedrich Road ............................................... Gillespie .............. E 0 2013 

23 ........... South Grape Creek east of Luckenbach ........................................ Gillespie .............. E 0 2013 

24 ........... Canyon near Frederick Creek ........................................................ Kendall ................ E 54 2013 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules 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; ‘‘MOpinion,’’ available online at https://

www.doi.gov/sites/ 

doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/ 

uploads/M-37021.pdf). The foreseeable 

future extends as far into the future as 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

(hereafter, the Services) can make 

reasonably reliable predictions about 

the threats to the species and the 

species’ responses to those threats. We 

need not identify the foreseeable future 

in terms of a specific period of time. We 

will describe the foreseeable future on a 

case-by-case basis, using the best 

available data and taking into account 

considerations such as the species’ lifehistory characteristics, threat projection 

timeframes, and environmental 

variability. In other words, the 

foreseeable future is the period of time 

over which we can make reasonably 

reliable predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not 

mean ‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to 

provide a reasonable degree of 

confidence in the prediction, in light of 

the conservation purposes of the Act. 

Analytical Framework 

The SSA report documents the results 

of our comprehensive biological review 

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 firstorder streams) where soil moisture is 

relatively persistent (Correll and 

Johnston 1978, p. 1368; Pasztor 2004, p. 

1; Poole et al. 2007, p. 437). Big red sage 

populations most often occur within 

165 feet (50 meters) of watercourses and 

where slopes are greater than 25 percent 

(Taylor and O’Kennon 2013, pp. 3–5). 

The species is endemic to the riparian 

ravines in the Edwards Plateau, and it 

occurs in specific positions where 

intermittent seepage occurs. 

Additionally, portions of EOs appear to 

obtain moisture from a major aquifer, 

the Edwards-Trinity or Trinity, at least 

when aquifer levels are high (Service 

2023, pp. 37–38). 

Minimum Viable Population 

Highly resilient populations of big red 

sage must also have stable or increasing 

demographic trends over time. This 

means that recruitment of new 

individuals is at least as great as the 

mortality rate, and populations must be 

large enough to have a high probability 

of surviving a prescribed period of time. 

Species that have more populations 

distributed over a broader geographic 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
7048 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules 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 (°C) (0.76 

degrees Fahrenheit (°F)), compared to 

the 1901 to 1960 baseline (USGCRP 

2017, p. 187). The frequency of heavy 

precipitation events in the Southern 

Great Plains has increased from 1901 to 

2016 and 1948 to 2016 (USGCRP 2017, 

pp. 20 –212) and is projected to 

continue to increase under both 

moderate and high emission scenarios. 

Because the big red sage only occurs 

where there is seep moisture along the 

slopes and bluffs of canyons and 

ravines, it requires relatively persistent 

soil moisture. Additionally, to evaluate 

how a changing climate may affect big 

red sage, we used the National Climate 

Change Viewer to compare past and 

projected future climate conditions for 

the Upper Guadalupe River watershed 

in Texas. The National Climate Change 

Viewer projects a decrease in soil water 

storage and an increase in summer 

evaporative deficit by 2050 to 2074, 

indicating that soil moisture will 

become more limiting to plant growth, 

and thus will restrict the big red sage to 

a smaller amount of suitable habitat 

(Service 2023, p. 42). Although climate 

models do not consistently project how 

total rainfall may change, the ongoing 

trend toward greater extremes in rainfall 

will likely increase with rising 

temperatures. We expect that mortality 

will increase and recruitment will 

decrease during longer, more severe 

droughts. Furthermore, the increasing 

frequency and intensity of heavy rainfall 

events will also exacerbate the threat of 

flash flooding. Flash floods have already 

caused population declines at EOs 5 and 

14, and EO 15 was completely destroyed 

by a landslide when the bluff above it 

collapsed, which may have been caused 

by flooding along Big Joshua Creek. 

Flood waters may uproot individual 

plants or wash away their substrates, or 

the plants may be buried under silt and 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
7050 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

debris (Service 2023, p. 40). Many EOs 

that occur along watercourses have 

individuals established below the highwater level that will likely be destroyed 

by a flood event at some point in the 

future (Taylor and O’Kennon 2013, p. 

10). We conclude that the direct and 

indirect effects of climate change and 

associated flash floods and bank erosion 

represent a potentially severe threat to 

the portions of big red sage populations 

that are close to watercourses and below 

the high-water level of floods 

throughout the species’ range. 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules 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

Representation 

area 

Element 

occurrence 

Population 

condition 

Habitat 

condition 

Overall EO 

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 Creek ........ Non-Contributing ............... High ................................... Non-Contributing. 

Guadalupe ......................... 4-Middle Turtle Creek ....... Non-Contributing ............... Low .................................... Non-Contributing. 

Guadalupe ......................... 4-Lower Turtle Creek ........ Extirpated .......................... Low .................................... Extirpated. 

Guadalupe ......................... 15 ...................................... Extirpated .......................... Not Determined ................. Extirpated. 

Guadalupe ......................... 20 ...................................... Moderate ........................... High ................................... Moderate. 

Unknown ............................ 7 ........................................ Non-Contributing ............... Unknown ........................... Non-Contributing. 

Cibolo ................................ 5-Upstream Cibolo Creek Non-Contributing ............... High ................................... Non-Contributing. 

Cibolo ................................ 5-Midstream Cibolo Creek Non-Contributing ............... Moderate ........................... Non-Contributing. 

Cibolo ................................ 5-Downstream Cibolo 

Creek.

Moderate ........................... High ................................... Moderate. 

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-Contributing.Not Determined ................. Extirpated/Non-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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
7052 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

Kohn 1991, pp. 3–30). This is evident in 

propagated populations of big red sage 

with known low genetic diversity that 

did not produce viable seeds (Hoban 

and Garner 2019, p. 4). Because of the 

species’ low genetic diversity, its ability 

to withstand stochastic events and adapt 

to changing environmental conditions is 

reduced. 

In summary, of the 14 known 

historical populations, 7 are extirpated 

and 7 are extant. This reduced 

redundancy makes the species more 

susceptible to catastrophic events such 

as floods and prolonged drought. 

Furthermore, of the extant populations, 

only four populations are expected to 

persist at least 10 years and three 

populations are likely to become 

extirpated within 10 years. The 

remaining populations are small, are 

isolated, and have low genetic diversity, 

making them less able to withstand 

stochastic events. 

As part of the SSA, we also developed 

two future condition scenarios to 

capture the range of uncertainties 

regarding future threats and the 

projected responses by the big red sage. 

Because we determined that the current 

condition of the big red sage is 

consistent with an endangered species 

(see Determination of the Big Red Sage’s 

Status, below), we are not presenting the 

results of the future scenarios in this 

proposed rule. Please refer to the SSA 

report (Service 2023, pp. 78–98) for the 

full analysis of future scenarios. 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules 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, selfsustaining, and functioning components 

of their ecosystems. 

The recovery planning process begins 

with development of a recovery outline 

made available to the public soon after 

a final listing determination. The 

recovery outline guides the immediate 

implementation of urgent recovery 

actions while a recovery plan is being 

developed. Recovery teams (composed 

of species experts, Federal and State 

agencies, nongovernmental 

organizations, and stakeholders) may be 

established to develop and implement 

recovery plans. The recovery planning 

process involves the identification of 

actions that are necessary to halt and 

reverse the species’ decline by 

addressing the threats to its survival and 

recovery. The recovery plan identifies 

recovery criteria for review of when a 

species may be ready for reclassification 

from endangered to threatened 

(‘‘downlisting’’) or removal from 

protected status (‘‘delisting’’), and 

methods for monitoring recovery 

progress. Recovery plans also establish 

a framework for agencies to coordinate 

their recovery efforts and provide 

estimates of the cost of implementing 

recovery tasks. Revisions of the plan 

may be done to address continuing or 

new threats to the species, as new 

substantive information becomes 

available. The recovery outline, draft 

recovery plan, final recovery plan, and 

any revisions will be available on our 

website as they are completed (https:// 

www.fws.gov/program/endangeredspecies), or from our Austin Ecological 

Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Implementation of recovery actions 

generally requires the participation of a 

broad range of partners, including other 

Federal agencies, States, Tribes, 

nongovernmental organizations, 

businesses, and private landowners. 

Examples of recovery actions include 

habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of 

native vegetation), research, captive 

propagation and reintroduction, and 

outreach and education. The recovery of 

many listed species cannot be 

accomplished solely on Federal lands 

because their range may occur primarily 

or solely on non-Federal lands. To 

achieve recovery of these species 

requires cooperative conservation efforts 

on private, State, and Tribal lands. 

If this species is listed, funding for 

recovery actions will be available from 

a variety of sources, including Federal 

budgets, State programs, and cost-share 

grants for non-Federal landowners, the 

academic community, and 

nongovernmental organizations. In 

addition, pursuant to section 6 of the 

Act, the State of Texas would be eligible 

for Federal funds to implement 

management actions that promote the 

protection or recovery of the big red 

sage. Information on our grant programs 

that are available to aid species recovery 

can be found at: https://www.fws.gov/ 

service/financial-assistance. 

Although the big red sage is only 

proposed for listing under the Act at 

this time, please let us know if you are 

interested in participating in recovery 

efforts for this species. Additionally, we 

invite you to submit any new 

information on this species whenever it 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
7054 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

permit from the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers under section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) 

or a permit from the Service under 

section 10 of the Act) or that involve 

some other Federal action (such as 

funding from the Federal Highway 

Administration, Federal Aviation 

Administration, or the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency). 

Federal actions not affecting listed 

species or critical habitat—and actions 

on State, Tribal, local, or private lands 

that are not federally funded, 

authorized, or carried out by a Federal 

agency—do not require section 7 

consultation. Federal agencies should 

coordinate with the local Service Field 

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT) with any specific questions on 

section 7 consultation and conference 

requirements. 

The Act and its implementing 

regulations set forth a series of general 

prohibitions and exceptions that apply 

to endangered plants. The prohibitions 

of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, and the 

Service’s implementing regulations 

codified at 50 CFR 17.61, make it illegal 

for any person subject to the jurisdiction 

of the United States to commit, to 

attempt to commit, to solicit another to 

commit or to cause to be committed any 

of the following with an endangered 

plant: (1) import to, or export from, the 

United States; (2) remove and reduce to 

possession from areas under Federal 

jurisdiction; maliciously damage or 

destroy on any such area; or remove, 

cut, dig up, or damage or destroy on any 

other area in knowing violation of any 

law or regulation of any State or in the 

course of any violation of a State 

criminal trespass law; (3) deliver, 

receive, carry, transport, or ship in 

interstate or foreign commerce, by any 

means whatsoever and in the course of 

a commercial activity; or (4) sell or offer 

for sale in interstate or foreign 

commerce. Certain exceptions to these 

prohibitions apply to employees or 

agents of the Service, other Federal land 

management agencies, and State 

conservation agencies. 

We may issue permits to carry out 

otherwise prohibited activities 

involving endangered plants under 

certain circumstances. Service 

regulations governing permits for 

endangered plants are codified at 50 

CFR 17.62, and general Service 

permitting regulations are codified at 50 

CFR part 13. With regard to endangered 

plants, a permit may be issued for 

scientific purposes or for enhancing the 

propagation or survival of the species. 

The statute also contains certain 

exemptions from the prohibitions, 

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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
7056 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act), we readily acknowledge 

our responsibilities to work directly 

with Tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

Tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to Tribes. 

We have determined that the big red 

sage does not occur on Tribal lands, so 

no Tribes would be affected if we list 

the species. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited in 

this rulemaking is available on the 

internet at https://www.regulations.gov 

and upon request from the Austin 

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 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

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

1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise 

noted. 

■ 2. In § 17.12, in paragraph (h), amend 

the List of Endangered and Threatened 

Plants by adding an entry for ‘‘Salvia 

pentstemonoides’’ in alphabetical order 

under FLOWERING PLANTS to read as 

follows: 

§ 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Scientific name Common name Where listed Status Listing citations 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 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 20 

[Docket No. FWS–HQ–MB–2024–0127; 

FXMB1231099BPP0–245–FF09M32000] 

RIN 1018–BH65 

Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed 

2025–26 Migratory Game Bird Hunting 

Regulations (Preliminary) 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service or we) proposes to 

establish hunting regulations for certain 

migratory game birds for the 2025–26 

hunting season. Through an annual 

rulemaking process, we prescribe 

outside limits (which we refer to as 

frameworks) within which States may 

select hunting seasons. This proposed 

rule provides the regulatory schedule, 

describes the proposed regulatory 

alternatives for the 2025–26 general 

duck seasons, and provides preliminary 

proposals that vary from the 2024–25 

hunting season regulations. Migratory 

bird hunting seasons provide 

opportunities for recreation and 

sustenance; aid Federal, State, and 

Tribal governments in the management 

of migratory game birds; and permit 

harvests at levels compatible with 

migratory game bird population status 

and habitat conditions. 

DATES: Comments: You may comment 

on the general duck season regulatory 

alternatives, the process for authorizing 

annual hunting seasons, and other 

preliminary proposals for the 2025–26 

season until February 20, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: Comments: You may submit 

comments on the proposals by one of 

the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments 

on Docket No. FWS–HQ–MB–2024– 

0127. 

• U.S. mail: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: FWS–HQ–MB–2024– 

0127; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 

MS: PRB/3W; 5275 Leesburg Pike; Falls 

Church, VA 22041–3803. 

We will not accept emailed or faxed 

comments. We will post all comments 

on https://www.regulations.gov. This 

generally means that your entire 

submission—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the website. See Public Comments, 

below, for more information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jerome Ford, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Department of the Interior, 

(703) 358–2606; jerome_ford@fws.gov. 

Individuals in the United States who are 

deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have 

a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, 

TDD, or TeleBraille) to access 

telecommunications relay services. 

Individuals outside the United States 

should use the relay services offered 

within their country to make 

international calls to the point of 

contact in the United States. For a 

summary of the proposed rule, please 

see the ‘‘rule summary document’’ in 

docket FWS–HQ–MB–2024–0127 on 

https://www.regulations.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Process for Establishing Annual 

Migratory Game Bird Hunting 

Regulations 

Background 

Migratory game birds are those bird 

species so designated in conventions 

between the United States and several 

foreign nations for the protection and 

management of these birds. Under the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; 16 

U.S.C. 703–712), the Secretary of the 

Interior is authorized to determine when 

‘‘hunting, taking, capture, killing, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1