[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 12 (Tuesday, January 21, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7043-7056]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-01117]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2024-0083; FXES1111090FEDR-256-FF09E21000]
RIN 1018-BG16
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species
Status for Big Red Sage
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
list the big red sage (Salvia pentstemonoides), a plant species from
central Texas, as an endangered species under the Endangered Species
Act of
[[Page 7044]]
1973, as amended (Act). This determination also serves as our 12-month
finding on a petition to list the big red sage. After a review of the
best available scientific and commercial information, we find that
listing the species is warranted. If we finalize this rule as proposed,
it would add this species to the List of Endangered and Threatened
Plants and extend the Act's protections to the species. We have
determined that designating critical habitat for the big red sage is
not prudent.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
March 24, 2025. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59
p.m. eastern time on the closing date. We must receive requests for a
public hearing, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT by March 7, 2025.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R2-ES-2024-0083,
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the
Search button. On the resulting page, in the panel on the left side of
the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the Proposed Rule
box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on
``Comment.''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS-R2-ES-2024-0083, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
Availability of supporting materials: Supporting materials, such as
the species status assessment report, are available on the Service's
website at https://www.fws.gov/office/austin-ecological-services, at
https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2024-0083, or both.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Myers, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Austin Ecological Services Field Office,
1505 Ferguson Lane, Austin, TX 78754; telephone 512-937-7371.
Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of
hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or
TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals
outside the United States should use the relay services offered within
their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in
the United States. Please see Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2024-0083 on https://www.regulations.gov for a document that summarizes this proposed rule.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.), a species warrants listing if it meets the definition of an
endangered species (in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range) or a threatened species (likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range). If we determine that a
species warrants listing, we must list the species promptly and
designate the species' critical habitat to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable. We have determined that the big red sage meets the
Act's definition of an endangered species; therefore, we are proposing
to list it as such. Listing a species as an endangered or threatened
species can be completed only by issuing a rule through the
Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking process (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.).
What this document does. We propose to list the big red sage as an
endangered species under the Act.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a
species is an endangered or threatened species because of any of five
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C)
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence. We have determined that big red sage is endangered
due to the following threats: herbivory (Factor C), collection and
inappropriate propagation (Factor B), land use changes (Factor A), and
effects from climate change such as flash floods and erosion (Factor
E).
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the Secretary of the Interior
(Secretary), to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, to
designate critical habitat concurrent with listing. We have determined
that designating critical habitat for big red sage is not prudent
because one of the main drivers of the species' status is direct
mortality and loss of genetic integrity resulting from the collection
of seeds and entire plants from wild populations (Factor B). The threat
of collection potentially imperils all populations whose geographic
locations are publicized and accessible to the public. Since we have
determined that the species is threatened by taking or other human
activity and identification of critical habitat can be expected to
increase the degree of such threat to the species, we determine that
designation of critical habitat is not prudent for the species.
Information Requested
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from other governmental agencies, Native
American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other
interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek
comments concerning:
(1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
(a) Biological or ecological requirements of the species, including
habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns
and the locations of any additional populations of this species;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and
projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its
habitat, or both.
(2) Threats and conservation actions affecting the species,
including:
(a) Factors that may be affecting the continued existence of the
species, which may include habitat modification or destruction,
overutilization, disease, predation, the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms, or other natural or manmade factors;
(b) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any threats (or lack thereof) to this species; and
(c) Existing regulations or conservation actions that may be
addressing threats to this species.
(3) Additional information concerning the historical and current
status of this species.
(4) Information regarding our determination that designating
critical
[[Page 7045]]
habitat for the big red sage is not prudent.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or
opposition to, the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, do not provide substantial
information necessary to support a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of
the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an
endangered or a threatened species must be made solely on the basis of
the best scientific and commercial data available, and section 4(b)(2)
of the Act directs that the Secretary shall designate critical habitat
on the basis of the best scientific data available.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the
top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We
will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov.
Our final determination may differ from this proposal because we
will consider all comments we receive during the comment period as well
as any information that may become available after this proposal. Based
on the new information we receive (and, if relevant, any comments on
that new information), we may conclude that the species is threatened
instead of endangered, or we may conclude that the species does not
warrant listing as either an endangered species or a threatened
species. In our final rule, we will clearly explain our rationale and
the basis for our final decision, including why we made changes, if
any, that differ from this proposal.
Public Hearing
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified
in DATES. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested, and announce the date, time, and place of the
hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the
Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the
hearing. We may hold the public hearing in person or virtually via
webinar. We will announce any public hearing on our website, in
addition to the Federal Register. The use of virtual public hearings is
consistent with our regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3).
Previous Federal Actions
On June 18, 2007, Forest Guardians (now Wild Earth Guardians)
petitioned the Service to list 475 species in the southwestern United
States, including big red sage, as endangered or threatened species
under the Act. On December 16, 2009, the Service published in the
Federal Register (74 FR 66866) a partial 90-day petition finding that
the petition provided substantial information indicating that the big
red sage may warrant listing under the Act. This document constitutes
the 12-month finding on the petition to list the big red sage under the
Act.
Peer Review
A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for
the big red sage. The SSA team was composed of Service biologists, in
consultation with other species experts. The SSA report represents a
compilation of the best scientific and commercial data available
concerning the status of the species, including the impacts of past,
present, and future factors (both negative and beneficial) affecting
the big red sage.
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22,
2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review in
listing actions under the Act (https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peer-review-policy-directors-memo-2016-08-22.pdf), we
solicited independent scientific review of the information contained in
the big red sage SSA report. We sent the SSA report to four independent
peer reviewers and received three responses. Results of this structured
peer review process can be found at https://www.regulations.gov. In
preparing this proposed rule, we incorporated the results of these
reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA report, which is the foundation
for this proposed rule.
Summary of Peer Reviewer Comments
As discussed above in Peer Review, we received comments from three
peer reviewers on the draft SSA report. We reviewed all comments we
received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new
information regarding the contents of the SSA report. The peer
reviewers generally concurred with our methods and conclusions, and
provided additional information, clarifications, and suggestions,
including clarifications in terminology and discussions of genetics and
hydrology, and other editorial suggestions. Otherwise, no substantive
changes to our analysis and conclusions within the SSA report were
deemed necessary, and peer reviewer comments are addressed in version
1.1 of the SSA report.
I. Proposed Listing Determination
Background
A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of big
red sage is presented in the SSA report (version 1.1; Service 2023, pp.
2-11).
Big red sage is a perennial herbaceous plant in the mint family
(Lamiaceae) that occurs along streams and narrow ravines in the Edwards
Plateau of central Texas. The historical range of the species includes
Bandera, Bexar, Comal, Gillespie, Kendall, Kerr, Real, Uvalde, and
Wilson Counties. Most big red sage plants occur on bluffs, ledges, and
slopes along watercourses and ravines where groundwater slowly seeps
through limestone to the surface.
Its long, crimson flowers with purplish bases adorn 5-foot-tall
stalks that arise from rosettes of shiny, dark green leaves (Service
2023, p. 2). Big red sage flowers opportunistically from May through
November in response to rainfall and the persistence of soil moisture
(Service 2023, p. 6). The flowers are specifically pollinated by
hummingbirds (Wester 2007, pp. 40, 72; Cibolo Center for Conservation
2021, p. 4); black-chinned hummingbirds (Archilochus alexandri) are the
most abundant species throughout the range and flowering period of the
big red sage (Service 2023, p. 8). Hummingbirds may forage within
discrete territories they establish and defend around concentrated
nectar sources; alternatively, they may also forage in a more dispersed
pattern along traplines, in which rewarding nectar sources are
[[Page 7046]]
visited repeatedly in a predictable sequence (Tello-Ramos et al. 2015,
pp. 812-813). Trapline foraging behavior has been documented among
black-chinned hummingbirds (Arizmendi and Ornelas 1990, p. 177). Based
on the trapline forage range of other hummingbird species (Gill 1988,
entire), we estimate that black-chinned hummingbirds foraging along
consistent, regular routes may cross-pollinate individuals of big red
sage that are separated by as much as 0.5 to 1.0 kilometers (km) (0.3
to 0.6 miles (mi)), and thus are important vectors for the species'
gene flow. However, the species' fecundity is low, and small, inbred
populations produce few viable seeds (Service 2023, p. 9). Individual
plants can live at least 10 years, and the rootstocks may branch to
form multiple rosettes that appear to be separate individuals;
therefore, the effective population sizes may be less than the numbers
of individuals counted in censuses (Service 2023, pp. 9-10).
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department's (TPWD) Texas Natural
Diversity Database (TXNDD) maintains geographic and population data of
plant and animal species of conservation concern in Texas. Data for
each species are organized by standard geographical units for
populations and habitats called ``source features'' (SFs) and ``element
occurrences'' (EOs). SFs and EOs are geographic locations where a
species has been recorded one or more times. They may be displayed as
points, lines, or polygons buffered by their estimated geographic
precision. SFs may be combined into a single E.O. if they are separated
by less than 1 km (0.6 mi) in the wild (NatureServe 2002, p. 26).
Therefore, each E.O. may contain one or more SFs. For the big red sage
and other plant species of conservation concern, we use the E.O.
standard as the unit of analysis because it ensures consistency among
all the partners concerned with the conservation and management of a
species, and this method involves rigorous scientific investigations
spanning many years. We use numbers to identify the EOs for the big red
sage, and all EOs are associated with unique identifiers in the TXNDD
(Service 2023, pp. 26-27). Big red sage has been documented at 18 EOs
(see table 1, below). Please refer to the SSA report for a full list of
EOs and their respective SFs for the big red sage (Service 2023, pp.
26-27).
Table 1--Summary of the EOs of Big Red Sage
[TXNDD ranks each EO as historical (H) or extant (E). Those marked as historical may not have population
estimates.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most recent
EO No. Site name County TXNDD rank population Year of most
estimate recent survey
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............... Barron Creek....... Kendall.................. H .............. ...............
2............... Guadalupe River at Kerr..................... H 50 1894
Kerrville.
3............... Verde Creek south Bandera/Kerr............. H .............. ...............
of Kerrville.
4............... Turtle Creek south Kerr..................... E 0 2013
of Kerrville.
5............... Cibolo Creek near Kendall.................. E 170 2013
Boerne.
7............... Sutherland Springs. Wilson................... H .............. ...............
8............... Frio Waterhole..... Kerr..................... H .............. ...............
10.............. Confluence of Bear Gillespie................ E 0 2013
Creek and
Pedernales River.
11.............. Can Creek and Hale Bandera/Real............. E 4 2013
Hollow at Lost
Maples State
Natural Area.
14.............. Frederick Creek at Kendall.................. E 401 2013
Interstate 10.
15.............. Big Joshua Creek... Kendall.................. E 0 2013
16.............. Wilson Hollow...... Real..................... E 2 1991
19.............. Comanche Springs on Bexar.................... H .............. ...............
Salado Creek.
20.............. North Fork Kerr..................... E 8 2016
Guadalupe River
above Farm to
Market Road 1340.
21.............. Blue Hole.......... Real..................... E 15 2018
22.............. Pedernales River at Gillespie................ E 0 2013
Friedrich Road.
23.............. South Grape Creek Gillespie................ E 0 2013
east of Luckenbach.
24.............. Canyon near Kendall.................. E 54 2013
Frederick Creek.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory and Analytical Framework
Regulatory Framework
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth
the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered
species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for
threatened species, and designating critical habitat for endangered and
threatened species.
The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a species that is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we
determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened
species because of any of the following factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative
effects or may have positive effects.
We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat''
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action
or condition or the action or condition itself.
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory
[[Page 7047]]
definition of an ``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In
determining whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate
all identified threats by considering the species' expected response
and the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and
conditions that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual,
population, and species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected
effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of
the threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative
effect of the threats in light of those actions and conditions that
will have positive effects on the species, such as any existing
regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines
whether the species meets the Act's definition of an ``endangered
species'' or a ``threatened species'' only after conducting this
cumulative analysis and describing the expected effect on the species.
The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis, which is
further described in the 2009 Memorandum Opinion on the foreseeable
future from the Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor (M-
37021, January 16, 2009; ``M-Opinion,'' available online at https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/uploads/M-37021.pdf).
The foreseeable future extends as far into the future as the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (hereafter,
the Services) can make reasonably reliable predictions about the
threats to the species and the species' responses to those threats. We
need not identify the foreseeable future in terms of a specific period
of time. We will describe the foreseeable future on a case-by-case
basis, using the best available data and taking into account
considerations such as the species' life-history characteristics,
threat projection timeframes, and environmental variability. In other
words, the foreseeable future is the period of time over which we can
make reasonably reliable predictions. ``Reliable'' does not mean
``certain''; it means sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of
confidence in the prediction, in light of the conservation purposes of
the Act.
Analytical Framework
The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive
biological review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding
the status of the species, including an assessment of the potential
threats to the species. The SSA report does not represent our decision
on whether the species should be proposed for listing as an endangered
or threatened species under the Act. However, it does provide the
scientific basis that informs our regulatory decisions, which involve
the further application of standards within the Act and its
implementing regulations and policies.
To assess big red sage viability, we used the three conservation
biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and representation
(Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly, resiliency is the
ability of the species to withstand environmental and demographic
stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, warm or cold years); redundancy
is the ability of the species to withstand catastrophic events (for
example, droughts, large pollution events); and representation is the
ability of the species to adapt to both near-term and long-term changes
in its physical and biological environment (for example, climate
conditions, pathogens). In general, species viability will increase
with increases in resiliency, redundancy, and representation (Smith et
al. 2018, p. 306). Using these principles, we identified the species'
ecological requirements for survival and reproduction at the
individual, population, and species levels, and described the
beneficial and risk factors influencing the species' viability.
The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages.
During the first stage, we evaluated the individual species' life-
history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical
and current condition of the species' demographics and habitat
characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at
its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making
predictions about the species' responses to positive and negative
environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout all of these
stages, we used the best available information to characterize
viability as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the
wild over time, which we then used to inform our regulatory decision.
The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from
the SSA report; the full SSA report can be found at Docket No. FWS-R2-
ES-2024-0083 on https://www.regulations.gov.
Summary of Biological Status and Threats
In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the
species and its resources, and the threats that influence the species'
current and future condition, in order to assess the species' overall
viability and the risks to that viability. For the big red sage to
maintain viability, its populations must be highly resilient with
sufficient redundancy and representation. Several factors influence the
resiliency of big red sage populations, including: (1) herbivory, (2)
land use changes, (3) collection and inappropriate propagation (i.e.,
breeding in captivity using closely related wild-sourced individuals
that results in inbreeding and decreased genetic diversity), and (4)
effects from climate change. These resiliency factors and habitat
elements are discussed in detail in the SSA report (Service 2023,
entire) and are summarized here.
Species Needs
Soil Moisture
Big red sage growth and flowering require the maintenance of soil
moisture through rainfall and/or seepage through fissures and cavities
in the limestone substrate. Flowering occurs opportunistically from May
through November in response to rainfall and the presence of soil
moisture (Service 2023, p. 6). Big red sage individuals establish on
bluffs, ledges, and slopes along watercourses (including first-order
streams) where soil moisture is relatively persistent (Correll and
Johnston 1978, p. 1368; Pasztor 2004, p. 1; Poole et al. 2007, p. 437).
Big red sage populations most often occur within 165 feet (50 meters)
of watercourses and where slopes are greater than 25 percent (Taylor
and O'Kennon 2013, pp. 3-5). The species is endemic to the riparian
ravines in the Edwards Plateau, and it occurs in specific positions
where intermittent seepage occurs. Additionally, portions of EOs appear
to obtain moisture from a major aquifer, the Edwards-Trinity or
Trinity, at least when aquifer levels are high (Service 2023, pp. 37-
38).
Minimum Viable Population
Highly resilient populations of big red sage must also have stable
or increasing demographic trends over time. This means that recruitment
of new individuals is at least as great as the mortality rate, and
populations must be large enough to have a high probability of
surviving a prescribed period of time. Species that have more
populations distributed over a broader geographic
[[Page 7048]]
range have a greater chance of surviving catastrophic events (Shaffer
and Stein 2000, pp. 308-310). Species or populations are highly
resilient when the probability of persisting 100 years is greater than
90 percent (Mace and Lande 1991, p. 151). This metric of population
resilience is called minimum viable population (MVP) (Pavlik 1996, p.
137). We estimate that highly resilient populations have an MVP of at
least 1,600 individuals of reproductive age (Service 2023, pp. 32-33).
MVP for a species varies based on different traits of that species,
including, but not limited to, longevity (i.e., perennial vs. annual),
growth form (i.e., woody vs. herbaceous), fecundity, and longevity of
seed viability. We determined that the MVP of 1,600 individuals for big
red sage based on the specific traits of big red sage, which fall in
the moderate range of several of these categories (Pavlik 1996, p.
137). For example, big red sage is perennial, occurs in old-growth
vegetation, plants may produce a moderate number of ramets (physically
separate but genetically identical individuals) that branch off the
original root system, it is herbaceous, has low fecundity, individual
survivorship is low, and environmental variation is high (Service 2024,
p. 33). Therefore, populations require a moderately high MVP to persist
for 100 years.
Individual and Population Connectivity
Small, reproductively isolated populations are susceptible to the
loss of genetic diversity, to genetic drift, and to inbreeding (Barrett
and Kohn 1991, pp. 3-30). Additionally, the loss of genetic diversity
may reduce the ability of a species or population to resist pathogens
and parasites, to adapt to changing environmental conditions, or to
colonize new habitats (Service 2023, p. 34). Conversely, populations
that pass through a genetic bottleneck may subsequently benefit through
the elimination of harmful alleles. Nevertheless, the net result of the
loss of genetic diversity is likely to be a loss of fitness and lower
chance of survival of populations and of the species.
Additionally, the seeds of big red sage have a very limited
dispersal range (Service 2023, p. 34). The forage range for the black-
chinned hummingbird, an important pollinator of big red sage,
determines the typical limits of gene flow between individuals (Service
2023, p. 34). We estimate that this limit may be from 0.5 to 1.0 km
(0.3 to 0.6 mi) (Service 2023, p. 34). When the limits of gene flow are
unknown, we apply the TXNDD's use of the NatureServe default minimum
separation distance of 1.0 km (0.6 mi) to delineate populations
(NatureServe 2020, p. 4). Therefore, big red sage populations must have
sufficient numbers of individuals and populations that are not too
closely related or too widely dispersed for effective pollination,
outcrossing, and seed production.
Risk Factors for Big Red Sage
We reviewed the potential risk factors (i.e., threats, stressors)
that could be currently affecting the big red sage. In this proposed
rule, we will discuss only those factors in detail that could
meaningfully impact the status of the species. The primary risk factors
(i.e., threats) affecting the status of big red sage are herbivory
(Factor C), collection and inappropriate propagation (Factor B), land
use changes (Factor A), and effects from climate change (Factor E).
Herbivory
Big red sage is palatable to browsing herbivores, such as white-
tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), introduced ungulates, and goats
(Capra hircus). Within large portions of the range of the big red sage,
the numbers of white-tailed deer are about three times greater than the
recommended sustainable deer population levels (Morrow 2020, p. 8;
Armstrong and Young 2000, p. 20; Service 2023, p. 36). In addition to
native white-tailed deer, several species of nonnative ungulate game
animals have been introduced in the Edwards Plateau (Mungall and
Sheffield 1994, pp. 188-194). Some introduced ungulates have escaped
and established large breeding populations in the wild, compounding the
browsing pressure from native white-tailed deer. Additionally, ranchers
also introduced large numbers of goats in Real County and elsewhere in
the Edwards Plateau beginning in the early 20th century (Minton 2019,
unpaginated). Since goats are voracious browsers and nimble scalers of
rocky slopes, large numbers of goats likely had a severe impact on
populations of big red sage before conservationists began searching for
the species.
Browsing from unsustainably large populations of deer has
eradicated big red sage from all known habitats except areas that are
inaccessible to deer, such as bluffs and steep slopes (Taylor and
O'Kennon 2013, p. 10). Herbivory has already resulted in the decline of
two of the seven remaining EOs of big red sage (EOs 11 and 14) (Ward
2010, p. 2). Therefore, herbivory, and thus mortality of individual
plants, by native and introduced ungulates has severely affected all
populations throughout the species' range and is a continuing severe
threat throughout the range.
Land Use Changes
Current rates of human population growth are stable or decreasing
in Real, Bandera, and Uvalde Counties; increasing moderately in Kerr
and Gillespie Counties; and increasing rapidly in Kendall County
(Service 2023, pp. 83-84). Although bluffs and steep slopes are not
suitable for most forms of land development, many big red sage
populations occur near watercourses where human activities are
concentrated (Service 2023, p. 30). Construction and maintenance of
houses, roads, bridges, and other recreational land uses may impact
these populations of big red sage.
All or portions of four EOs (2, 10, 19, 22) have been lost to
development or land use changes that altered the native plant community
(Taylor and O'Kennon 2013, pp. 6, 8, 9; TXNDD 2019, pp. 3, 4, 15, 16,
35, 36, 43). In these cases, some individuals were likely to have been
destroyed when habitats were converted to buildings or pavement, or
when nonnative vegetation was introduced in developed areas, while
others may have died as a result of other drastic changes to the
habitat.
In addition to losses that are directly attributable to urban and
residential development, an increase in the amount of impermeable
surfaces or a loss of vegetative cover may reduce the infiltration of
water into the ground; this in turn may reduce the availability and
constancy of seep moisture that sustains big red sage individuals and
populations. The drying of these seepage areas may impact big red sage
populations because of the reduction of necessary soil moisture for
sustaining plant and population growth (Taylor and O'Kennon 2013, pp.
10-11). Three of the remaining seven EOs (EOs 5, 14, and 24) are
currently at the greatest risk to development. Based on the extent of
land use changes to known populations and current rates of human
population growth in the encompassing counties, we estimate that this
threat currently affects 25 percent of all extant populations.
Therefore, land use changes are a continuing, potentially severe threat
throughout the species' range.
Collection From the Wild and the Loss of Genetic Integrity Due to
Inappropriate Propagation
Big red sage is used in landscapes and pollinator gardens, both
within its native range in Texas as well as throughout North America
and elsewhere. It has been propagated and
[[Page 7049]]
sold by several commercial nurseries since 1986 (Enquist 1987, p. 5).
Seeds and entire plants have been collected from the wild for
landscaping and commercial propagation from at least two EOs (14 and
20) that are accessible to the public (Collier 1989, pp. 1-2; Taylor
and O'Kennon 2013, p. 11). E.O. 14, the source of at least one
propagated population (Hoban and Garner 2019, p. 1), was widely known
and easily accessible to the public. In 1988, the State Department of
Highways and Public Transportation placed signs at E.O. 14 stating,
``Non Mowing Area,'' ``Wildflower Research Area,'' and ``Property of
State of Texas, Penalty for Private Use.'' On June 27, 1989, State
Department of Highways and Public Transportation maintenance personnel
found the signs pulled out of the ground with cut flowering stems of
the big red sage placed on top of them, with evidence of digging and
cutting of the plants (Collier 1989, pp. 1-2). Therefore, there is
confirmation that collection contributed to the decline of that
population, along with other possible causes, including a major flood,
competition from invasive plants, and ungulate browsing (Service 2023,
p. 10). Other EOs, such as 11 and 21, are vulnerable to collection from
the wild; undocumented populations may also have been discovered and
depleted by collectors. Although the habitat of E.O. 11 is intact and
is in high condition, and the site is protected as a State Natural
Area, this population has declined 87 percent over 31 years (Service
2023, pp. 22, 65). This decline can be attributed to illicit collection
because the collection sites have been publicized. However, additional
factors may have also contributed to this decline, including herbivory
by over-abundant white-tailed deer and introduced ungulates, and the
demographic and genetic consequences of small population sizes. Because
collection and sale of the big red sage has been ongoing for decades,
we conclude that collection from wild populations is a potentially
severe, continuing threat to all populations that occur in sites that
are known to and accessible by the public.
Inappropriate propagation is also a threat to big red sage.
Propagation, in general, is a useful tool for plant conservation.
However, there are several potential risks if conducted without regard
for the conservation of a species' genetic integrity. Propagated plant
populations often arise from a very small number of founders collected
from the wild, and propagated populations may lose alleles, and thus
experience a decline in genetic diversity through genetic drift (the
random reduction in frequency of alleles or the complete loss of
alleles). Genetic drift occurs most rapidly when the number of breeding
individuals is small.
Additionally, propagated populations may also experience a decrease
in genetic diversity through deliberate or inadvertent selection.
Selection leads to non-random changes in allele frequencies and non-
random losses of alleles. Deliberate selection occurs when seeds are
selected from plants with specific desirable traits, such as size,
form, or flower color, and are used to propagate subsequent
generations. Inadvertent selection occurs as an unintended consequence
of propagation. For example, growers typically retain only the
individuals that germinate readily and then use those individuals as
future seed sources; consequently, propagated populations frequently
lose the seed dormancy mechanisms that benefit the survival of wild
populations. Each successive propagated generation incrementally
changes the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool, including the
complete loss of alleles. Ultimately, both deliberate and inadvertent
selection lead to plants that are more fit in cultivation but less
likely to persist if transplanted back into the wild (Service 2023, p.
39).
Through propagation, it is possible to create unlimited numbers of
individuals that, once released to the wild, may interbreed with and
overwhelm the much smaller wild populations with a very narrow sample
of the species' original genetic diversity, thus causing the loss of
rare wild genotypes. Release of individuals bred in cultivation may
also introduce genes that reduce fitness (e.g., loss of seed dormancy)
into the wild population, as discussed above. Finally,
horticulturalists and plant collectors may bring big red sage into
proximity with other Salvia species that are geographically separated
in the wild; if these taxa can breed with each other, this could lead
to hybridization. An escape of hybridized Salvia species into the wild
populations could lead to the extinction of the original wild genotype
through interbreeding.
We have no evidence that the progeny of propagated individuals of
big red sage have colonized wild population sites. Nevertheless,
propagated big red sage populations have very low genetic diversity
(Hoban and Garner 2019, p. 4). We conclude that inappropriate
propagation is a potentially severe threat of unknown extent to the
genetic integrity of the remaining wild populations and the species.
Effects From Climate Change
The Summary for Policy Makers in the Sixth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that global surface
temperatures will continue to increase until at least the mid-century
under all emissions scenarios considered; the frequency and intensity
of hot extremes, marine heatwaves, and agricultural and ecological
droughts will increase in some regions; and heavy precipitation events
will become more frequent (IPCC 2021, pp. 16-20). The U.S. Global
Climate Research Program (USGCRP) Fourth National Climate Assessment
reports that average annual temperatures from 1986 to 2016 have
increased in the Southern Great Plains, which includes the range of big
red sage, by 0.42 degrees Celsius ([deg]C) (0.76 degrees Fahrenheit
([deg]F)), compared to the 1901 to 1960 baseline (USGCRP 2017, p. 187).
The frequency of heavy precipitation events in the Southern Great
Plains has increased from 1901 to 2016 and 1948 to 2016 (USGCRP 2017,
pp. 20 -212) and is projected to continue to increase under both
moderate and high emission scenarios.
Because the big red sage only occurs where there is seep moisture
along the slopes and bluffs of canyons and ravines, it requires
relatively persistent soil moisture. Additionally, to evaluate how a
changing climate may affect big red sage, we used the National Climate
Change Viewer to compare past and projected future climate conditions
for the Upper Guadalupe River watershed in Texas. The National Climate
Change Viewer projects a decrease in soil water storage and an increase
in summer evaporative deficit by 2050 to 2074, indicating that soil
moisture will become more limiting to plant growth, and thus will
restrict the big red sage to a smaller amount of suitable habitat
(Service 2023, p. 42). Although climate models do not consistently
project how total rainfall may change, the ongoing trend toward greater
extremes in rainfall will likely increase with rising temperatures. We
expect that mortality will increase and recruitment will decrease
during longer, more severe droughts. Furthermore, the increasing
frequency and intensity of heavy rainfall events will also exacerbate
the threat of flash flooding. Flash floods have already caused
population declines at EOs 5 and 14, and EO 15 was completely destroyed
by a landslide when the bluff above it collapsed, which may have been
caused by flooding along Big Joshua Creek. Flood waters may uproot
individual plants or wash away their substrates, or the plants may be
buried under silt and
[[Page 7050]]
debris (Service 2023, p. 40). Many EOs that occur along watercourses
have individuals established below the high-water level that will
likely be destroyed by a flood event at some point in the future
(Taylor and O'Kennon 2013, p. 10). We conclude that the direct and
indirect effects of climate change and associated flash floods and bank
erosion represent a potentially severe threat to the portions of big
red sage populations that are close to watercourses and below the high-
water level of floods throughout the species' range.
Summary
Several historical and ongoing influences, including herbivory,
land use changes, collection, and inappropriate propagation, may affect
the viability of the big red sage. The most pervasive threats to the
species are herbivory and collection, which have already resulted in
the extirpation and decline of several populations. Additionally,
climate change is expected to exacerbate impacts from all
aforementioned threats.
Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms
TPWD has previously supported two grants that promoted the
conservation of the big red sage. The 2012 Texas Conservation Action
Plan identified a research priority to study the distribution of and
threats to the big red sage. This led to a wildlife conservation grant
to update the species' status (Taylor and O'Kennon 2013, entire). The
TPWD Conservation License Plate Program supported an investigation of
the species' conservation genetics in 2019 (Hoban and Garner 2019, pp.
1-2). This genetic study was conducted at EO 11 located at Lost Maples
State Natural Area, which is protected by TPWD. Although the habitat is
intact and the site is protected as a State Natural Area, this
population has declined 87 percent over 31 years. Factors that may have
contributed to this decline include herbivory by overabundant white-
tailed deer and introduced ungulates, as well as the demographic and
genetic consequences of a small population size. Since the collection
sites have been publicized, it is also possible that illicit collection
may also have contributed to this decline. TPWD is currently supporting
a third project, funded through the Service's cooperative endangered
species conservation fund (see 16 U.S.C. 1535(i)). The objectives of
this project are to seek access to private lands and conduct surveys
for new populations, collect seeds from wild populations, and propagate
seeds of wild populations to increase seed available for reintroduction
and augmentation of populations, scientific research, and seed banking.
One of the largest populations of the big red sage occurs at Cibolo
Bluffs (EO 5), which is owned by Cibolo Center for Conservation and is
monitored annually by volunteers of the Cibolo Center for Conservation
and trustees of Cibolo Preserve. In 2005, there was a big red sage
reintroduction at Cibolo Center for Conservation (formerly Cibolo
Nature Center) from seeds obtained from the Lady Bird Johnson
Wildflower Center and collected from the wild (likely Cibolo Bluffs).
Results from this reintroduction suggest that the big red sage may be
relatively resilient to the wide extremes in annual rainfall that
characterize the Edwards Plateau (Service 2023, p. 46). However, none
of the individuals that were planted outside of exclosures survived,
indicating that herbivory by overabundant white-tailed deer is a severe
threat to the survival of the big red sage. While the protected
individuals declined over time, they also produced large numbers of
seeds, with new big red sage individuals found growing nearby along a
creek in 2013. In summary, this small pilot reintroduction demonstrates
that it is possible to establish new population sources or to augment
existing populations, provided that the sites are protected from white-
tailed deer and other ungulates.
Cumulative Effects
We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of
the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have
analyzed the cumulative effects of identified threats and conservation
actions on the species. To assess the current and future condition of
the species, we evaluate the effects of all the relevant factors that
may be influencing the species, including threats and conservation
efforts. Because the SSA framework considers not just the presence of
the factors, but to what degree they collectively influence risk to the
entire species, our assessment integrates the cumulative effects of the
factors and replaces a standalone cumulative-effects analysis.
Species Condition
We used the U.S. Geological Survey's hydrologic unit code watershed
boundaries to delineate four representation areas of the big red sage:
Guadalupe, Cibolo, Frio-Sabinal, and Pedernales. The current condition
of the big red sage considers the risks to the populations previously
and currently. For each EO, we developed and assigned categories for
the species' demographic and habitat conditions to measure population
resiliency of the big red sage. Our analysis was conducted at the EO
level, but some individual SFs may have different conditions than the
EO in which it falls.
Seven EOs (EO numbers 5, 11, 14, 16, 20, 21, and 24) are extant and
seven EOs (EO numbers 2, 4, 10, 15, 19, 22, and 23) are extirpated
(Service 2024, p. 50). There are 4 EOs that were reliably recorded in
the past for which there have been no recent visits, or the exact
geographic location is unknown (EO numbers 1, 3, 7, and 8). We
considered these previously documented populations where we could not
determine if they are currently extant or extirpated as ``non-
contributing'' (i.e., not contributing to the overall viability of the
species), and they are not included in the overall condition assessment
of the species. Therefore, we consider there to be 14 known historical
populations contributing to our understanding of the overall viability
of the species.
We used MVP as the metric to determine the population condition
(i.e., resiliency) for each EO (Pavlik 1996, p. 137). MVP is an
estimate of population size needed for a population to have a high
probability of surviving 100 years, which for the big red sage is 1,600
individuals (Service 2023, p. 33). The estimate of MVP is based only on
numbers of mature individuals (those that have flowered at least once
or are judged capable of flowering) because juveniles that die before
they reproduce do not contribute to the effective population size or
future genetic diversity.
We categorized the population condition of each EO as high,
moderate, low, or extirpated. EOs are in high condition when they have
the estimated MVP of 1,600 mature individuals, meaning the populations
would likely persist for 100 years. Moderate condition is a population
of at least 100 individuals, which is a population size that is likely
to persist for at least 10 years and has the ability to have increased
resiliency through conservation and management. We adopt 10 years as
the threshold for moderate condition because 10 years is the observed
lifespan of an individual and it is long enough for both recruitment
and mortality to occur and for demographic trends to emerge (Taylor
2021, pers. comm.). Low condition is a population size fewer than 100
individuals that is not likely to persist 10 years and is unlikely to
increase resilience without
[[Page 7051]]
augmentation as well as conservation and management.
The evaluation of habitat conditions of the EOs includes the amount
and percent of good and excellent habitat, the presence of gaps between
areas of good or excellent habitat, the proximity of urban and
residential development, and the abundance of forested ravines and
tributaries that connect to the EOs (Service 2023, p. 54). High habitat
condition was categorized by having, on average, abundant potential
habitat, few (if any) significant habitat gaps, low proximity to or
absence of nearby urban and residential development, and abundant
tributary ravines. Moderate habitat condition was categorized by
having, on average, relatively abundant potential habitat, large or
several gaps between suitable habitat areas, some proximity to urban
and residential development, and few forested ravines and tributaries.
Low habitat condition was categorized by having, on average, low
amounts of potential habitat, many or large significant habitat gaps,
large amounts or very nearby urban and residential development, and few
to no nearby forested ravines and tributaries. We categorized the
overall condition of each EO as the lesser of the population condition
and habitat condition (see table 2, below). There are several
populations that were reliably recorded in the past for which there
have been no recent visits, or the exact geographic location is
unknown. We considered these previously documented populations where we
could not determine if they are currently extant or extirpated as
``non-contributing'' (i.e., not contributing to the overall viability
of the species), and they are not included in the overall condition
assessment of the species.
Table 2--Summary of Representation Areas, Population and Habitat Conditions, and Overall Resilience of the EOs
of Big Red Sage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population Overall EO
Representation area Element occurrence condition Habitat condition resilience
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guadalupe or Pedernales......... 1................. Non-Contributing.. Not Determined.... Non-Contributing.
Guadalupe....................... 2................. Extirpated........ Developed......... Extirpated.
Guadalupe....................... 3................. Non-Contributing.. Not Determined.... Non-Contributing.
Guadalupe....................... 4-Upper Turtle Non-Contributing.. High.............. Non-Contributing.
Creek.
Guadalupe....................... 4-Middle Turtle Non-Contributing.. Low............... Non-Contributing.
Creek.
Guadalupe....................... 4-Lower Turtle Extirpated........ Low............... Extirpated.
Creek.
Guadalupe....................... 15................ Extirpated........ Not Determined.... Extirpated.
Guadalupe....................... 20................ Moderate.......... High.............. Moderate.
Unknown......................... 7................. Non-Contributing.. Unknown........... Non-Contributing.
Cibolo.......................... 5-Upstream Cibolo Non-Contributing.. High.............. Non-Contributing.
Creek.
Cibolo.......................... 5-Midstream Cibolo Non-Contributing.. Moderate.......... Non-Contributing.
Creek.
Cibolo.......................... 5-Downstream Moderate.......... High.............. Moderate.
Cibolo Creek.
Cibolo.......................... 14................ Moderate.......... Moderate.......... Moderate.
Cibolo.......................... 24................ Moderate.......... Moderate.......... Moderate.
Frio-Sabinal.................... 8................. Non-Contributing.. High.............. Non-Contributing.
Frio-Sabinal.................... 11................ Low............... High.............. Low.
Frio-Sabinal.................... 16................ Low............... High.............. Low.
Frio-Sabinal.................... 21................ Low............... High.............. Low.
Pedernales...................... 10................ Extirpated/Non- Not Determined.... Extirpated/Non-
Contributing. Contributing.
Pedernales...................... 22................ Extirpated........ Not Determined.... Extirpated.
Pedernales...................... 23................ Extirpated........ Not Determined.... Extirpated.
Headwaters Salado Creek......... 19................ Extirpated........ Developed......... Extirpated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The species' total known populations have declined by 46 percent
since 1988. Twenty-eight percent of known EOs have been completely
extirpated. All known EOs in the Pedernales representation area are
extirpated. The Guadalupe representation area has only one remaining
E.O., which is in moderate condition. The Frio-Sabinal representation
area has three EOs, all of which are in low condition. The Cibolo
representation area has three EOs in moderate condition that are
currently isolated, or nearly isolated, from each other by urban,
residential, and recreational development.
Redundancy for the big red sage is characterized by having
multiple, sufficiently resilient populations distributed across the
spring systems historically occupied by the species for the species to
be able to withstand catastrophic events. Species that have redundant,
sufficiently resilient populations distributed across their historical
ranges are less susceptible to the risk of extinction from catastrophic
events. Of the 14 known historical populations of big red sage, 7 have
become extirpated. Therefore, redundancy has been significantly reduced
from historical levels, making the species more vulnerable to
catastrophic events such as flash floods and prolonged drought.
Representation reflects a species' capacity to adapt to changing
environmental conditions over time and can be characterized by genetic
and ecological diversity within and among populations. We describe
species representation for the big red sage as genetic diversity both
within and among populations. Current populations of big red sage have
very low overall species diversity and small population sizes and are
likely to continue to experience declines in genetic diversity and
increased inbreeding (Hoban and Garner 2019, pp. 3-4). Although the big
red sage has critically low genetic diversity, wild populations
maintain greater genetic diversity than propagated populations (Hoban
and Garner 2019, pp. 3-4). When coupled with small population sizes,
big red sage populations may experience an increased loss in genetic
variation, resulting in a population's reduced ability to survive and
reproduce (i.e., inbreeding depression) (Hoban and Garner 2019, p. 4).
The big red sage occurs only in small, isolated groups of individuals,
which are susceptible to the loss of genetic diversity, to genetic
drift, and to inbreeding (Barrett and
[[Page 7052]]
Kohn 1991, pp. 3-30). This is evident in propagated populations of big
red sage with known low genetic diversity that did not produce viable
seeds (Hoban and Garner 2019, p. 4). Because of the species' low
genetic diversity, its ability to withstand stochastic events and adapt
to changing environmental conditions is reduced.
In summary, of the 14 known historical populations, 7 are
extirpated and 7 are extant. This reduced redundancy makes the species
more susceptible to catastrophic events such as floods and prolonged
drought. Furthermore, of the extant populations, only four populations
are expected to persist at least 10 years and three populations are
likely to become extirpated within 10 years. The remaining populations
are small, are isolated, and have low genetic diversity, making them
less able to withstand stochastic events.
As part of the SSA, we also developed two future condition
scenarios to capture the range of uncertainties regarding future
threats and the projected responses by the big red sage. Because we
determined that the current condition of the big red sage is consistent
with an endangered species (see Determination of the Big Red Sage's
Status, below), we are not presenting the results of the future
scenarios in this proposed rule. Please refer to the SSA report
(Service 2023, pp. 78-98) for the full analysis of future scenarios.
Determination of the Big Red Sage's Status
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a
threatened species. The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a
species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion
of its range and a ``threatened species'' as a species likely to become
an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we determine
whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a
threatened species because of any of the following factors: (A) The
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
Status Throughout All of Its Range
After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the
cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1)
factors, we find that the big red sage has declined from known
historical levels in size and number of populations. Our analysis
revealed several factors that caused this decline and pose a meaningful
risk to the viability of the species. These threats are primarily
related to habitat changes (Factor A), including land use changes;
overutilization (Factor B) by collection and inappropriate propagation;
herbivory (Factor C); and the effects of climate change (Factor E).
Of the 14 known historical populations, 7 are extirpated and 7 are
extant. This decline in number of populations from known historical
levels indicates a reduced level of redundancy, making the big red sage
more vulnerable to catastrophic events such as flash floods. Of the
seven extant populations, only four populations are expected to persist
at least 10 years and three are likely to become extirpated within 10
years. These levels of resiliency of the remaining populations exhibit
a lowered ability of the species to withstand environmental and
demographic stochasticity. Additionally, overall genetic diversity of
the species is low, meaning that the species may not be adequately able
to adapt to both near-term and long-term changes in its physical and
biological environment (i.e., the species may lack adaptive capacity).
The most pervasive threats to the species are herbivory and
collection and inappropriate propagation. Browsing from unsustainably
large populations of deer has eradicated big red sage from all known
habitats except areas that are inaccessible to deer, such as bluffs and
steep slopes (Taylor and O'Kennon 2013, p. 10). Herbivory has already
resulted in the decline of several EOs of big red sage, including EOs
11 and 14 (Ward 2010, p. 2). Seeds and entire plants have been
collected from the wild for landscaping and commercial propagation from
at least two EOs (14 and 20) that are accessible to the public (Collier
1989, pp. 1-2; Taylor and O'Kennon 2013, p. 11). E.O. 14 was widely
known and easily accessible to the public, and collection contributed
to the decline of that population, which remains extant.
These threats, in addition to land use changes and effects from
climate change, have reduced available habitat for the big red sage and
resulted in the direct and indirect destruction of individual plants
and entire populations. All or portions of four EOs have been lost to
development or land use changes where individual plants were likely to
have been destroyed when habitats were converted to buildings or
pavement, or when nonnative vegetation was introduced in developed
areas, while others may have died as a result of other drastic changes
to the habitat (Taylor and O'Kennon 2013, pp. 6, 8, 9; TXNDD 2019, pp.
3, 4, 15, 16, 35, 36, 43). Effects from climate change such as flash
floods have already caused population declines at three EOs, one of
which was completely destroyed. Flood waters may uproot individual
plants or wash away their substrates, or the plants may be buried under
silt and debris (Service 2023, p. 40).
In summary, the big red sage is very susceptible to extirpations
from catastrophic events and has limited adaptive capacity. The number
of known populations has already been reduced from 14 to 7 populations
due to herbivory, collection and inappropriate propagation, land use
changes, and effects from climate change, all of which remain active
threats to existing populations. The species is in danger of extinction
due to the aforementioned threats, which have historically impacted,
and are currently impacting, the species and reducing its viability
across its range. We do not find the species meets the Act's definition
of a threatened species because the species has already shown declines
in the number and resiliency of populations. Half of known populations
have already become extirpated due to the threats mentioned above, and
all remaining populations are at risk due to the same threats. Because
current redundancy is reduced from known historical levels, and
representation is limited due to low genetic diversity, the species is
vulnerable to catastrophic and stochastic events. Thus, after assessing
the best scientific and commercial data available, we determine that
the big red sage is in danger of extinction throughout all of its
range.
Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range. We have determined that the big red sage is in danger of
extinction throughout all of its range and accordingly did not
undertake an analysis of any significant portion of its range. Because
the big red sage warrants listing as endangered
[[Page 7053]]
throughout all of its range, our determination does not conflict with
the decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 435 F.
Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 2020), because that decision related to significant
portion of the range analyses for species that warrant listing as
threatened, not endangered, throughout all of their range.
Determination of Status
Our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information indicates that the big red sage meets the Act's definition
of an endangered species. Therefore, we propose to list the big red
sage as an endangered species in accordance with sections 3(6) and
4(a)(1) of the Act.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened species under the Act include recognition as a listed
species, planning and implementation of recovery actions, requirements
for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices.
Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, foreign
governments, private organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages
cooperation with the States and other countries and calls for recovery
actions to be carried out for listed species. The protection required
by Federal agencies, including the Service, and the prohibitions
against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of
the Act. Section 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop and
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The goal of this process is to restore listed
species to a point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and
functioning components of their ecosystems.
The recovery planning process begins with development of a recovery
outline made available to the public soon after a final listing
determination. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation
of urgent recovery actions while a recovery plan is being developed.
Recovery teams (composed of species experts, Federal and State
agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders) may be
established to develop and implement recovery plans. The recovery
planning process involves the identification of actions that are
necessary to halt and reverse the species' decline by addressing the
threats to its survival and recovery. The recovery plan identifies
recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for
reclassification from endangered to threatened (``downlisting'') or
removal from protected status (``delisting''), and methods for
monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework
for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates
of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Revisions of the plan may
be done to address continuing or new threats to the species, as new
substantive information becomes available. The recovery outline, draft
recovery plan, final recovery plan, and any revisions will be available
on our website as they are completed (https://www.fws.gov/program/endangered-species), or from our Austin Ecological Services Field
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal
agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses,
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
If this species is listed, funding for recovery actions will be
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State
programs, and cost-share grants for non-Federal landowners, the
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition,
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the State of Texas would be eligible
for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote the
protection or recovery of the big red sage. Information on our grant
programs that are available to aid species recovery can be found at:
https://www.fws.gov/service/financial-assistance.
Although the big red sage is only proposed for listing under the
Act at this time, please let us know if you are interested in
participating in recovery efforts for this species. Additionally, we
invite you to submit any new information on this species whenever it
becomes available and any information you may have for recovery
planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Section 7 of the Act is titled, ``Interagency Cooperation,'' and it
mandates all Federal action agencies to use their existing authorities
to further the conservation purposes of the Act and to ensure that
their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
listed species or adversely modify critical habitat. Regulations
implementing section 7 are codified at 50 CFR part 402.
Section 7(a)(2) states that each Federal action agency shall, in
consultation with the Secretary, ensure that any action they authorize,
fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat. Each Federal agency shall
review its action at the earliest possible time to determine whether it
may affect listed species or critical habitat. If a determination is
made that the action may affect listed species or critical habitat,
formal consultation is required (50 CFR 402.14(a)), unless the Service
concurs in writing that the action is not likely to adversely affect
listed species or critical habitat. At the end of a formal
consultation, the Service issues a biological opinion, containing its
determination of whether the Federal action is likely to result in
jeopardy or adverse modification.
In contrast, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies
to confer with the Service on any action which is likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed under the
Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat proposed to be designated for such species. Although the
conference procedures are required only when an action is likely to
result in jeopardy or adverse modification, action agencies may
voluntarily confer with the Service on actions that may affect species
proposed for listing or critical habitat proposed to be designated. In
the event that the subject species is listed or the relevant critical
habitat is designated, a conference opinion may be adopted as a
biological opinion and serve as compliance with section 7(a)(2) of the
Act.
Examples of discretionary actions for the big red sage that may be
subject to conference and consultation procedures under section 7 are
land management or other landscape-altering activities on Federal lands
as well as actions on State, Tribal, local, or private lands that
require a Federal permit (such as a
[[Page 7054]]
permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service
under section 10 of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action
(such as funding from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal
Aviation Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency).
Federal actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat--and
actions on State, Tribal, local, or private lands that are not
federally funded, authorized, or carried out by a Federal agency--do
not require section 7 consultation. Federal agencies should coordinate
with the local Service Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT) with any specific questions on section 7 consultation and
conference requirements.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered plants.
The prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, and the Service's
implementing regulations codified at 50 CFR 17.61, make it illegal for
any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to commit,
to attempt to commit, to solicit another to commit or to cause to be
committed any of the following with an endangered plant: (1) import to,
or export from, the United States; (2) remove and reduce to possession
from areas under Federal jurisdiction; maliciously damage or destroy on
any such area; or remove, cut, dig up, or damage or destroy on any
other area in knowing violation of any law or regulation of any State
or in the course of any violation of a State criminal trespass law; (3)
deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign
commerce, by any means whatsoever and in the course of a commercial
activity; or (4) sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign
commerce. Certain exceptions to these prohibitions apply to employees
or agents of the Service, other Federal land management agencies, and
State conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered plants under certain circumstances. Service
regulations governing permits for endangered plants are codified at 50
CFR 17.62, and general Service permitting regulations are codified at
50 CFR part 13. With regard to endangered plants, a permit may be
issued for scientific purposes or for enhancing the propagation or
survival of the species. The statute also contains certain exemptions
from the prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
II. Critical Habitat
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area
occupied by the species as an area that may generally be delineated
around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary (i.e.,
range). Such areas may include those areas used throughout all or part
of the species' life cycle, even if not used on a regular basis (e.g.,
migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats used periodically,
but not solely by vagrant individuals).
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the requirement that each Federal action agency ensure, in
consultation with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or
carry out is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat. The designation of
critical habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge,
wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such
designation also does not allow the government or public to access
private lands. Such designation does not require implementation of
restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by non-Federal
landowners. Rather, designation requires that, where a landowner
requests Federal agency funding or authorization for an action that may
affect an area designated as critical habitat, the Federal agency
consult with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. If the
action may affect the listed species itself (such as for occupied
critical habitat), the Federal agency would have already been required
to consult with the Service even absent the designation because of the
requirement to ensure that the action is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the species. Even if the Service were to
conclude after consultation that the proposed activity is likely to
result in destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat,
the Federal action agency and the landowner are not required to abandon
the proposed activity, or to restore or recover the species; instead,
they must implement ``reasonable and prudent alternatives'' to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best
scientific data available, those physical or biological features that
are essential to the conservation of the species (such as space, food,
cover, and protected habitat).
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on
Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R.
[[Page 7055]]
5658)), and our associated Information Quality Guidelines provide
criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our
decisions are based on the best scientific data available. They require
our biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use
of the best scientific data available, to use primary and original
sources of information as the basis for recommendations to designate
critical habitat.
When we are determining which areas should be designated as
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the
information from the SSA report and information developed during the
listing process for the species. Additional information sources may
include any generalized conservation strategy, criteria, or outline
that may have been developed for the species; the recovery plan for the
species; articles in peer-reviewed journals; conservation plans
developed by States and counties; scientific status surveys and
studies; biological assessments; other unpublished materials; or
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species.
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) regulatory
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species; and (3) the prohibitions found in section 9 of the Act.
Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside
their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy
findings in some cases. These protections and conservation tools will
continue to contribute to recovery of the species. Similarly, critical
habitat designations made on the basis of the best available
information at the time of designation will not control the direction
and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans, or
other species conservation planning efforts if new information
available at the time of those planning efforts calls for a different
outcome.
Prudency Determination
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable, the Secretary shall designate critical habitat at the
time the species is determined to be an endangered species or a
threatened species. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that
designation of critical habitat may not be prudent in circumstances
such as, but not limited to, the following:
(i) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the
degree of such threat to the species;
(ii) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the
species;
(iii) Areas within the jurisdiction of the United States provide no
more than negligible conservation value, if any, for a species
occurring primarily outside the jurisdiction of the United States; or
(iv) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat.
As discussed above, big red sage is threatened by collection and
inappropriate propagation, and identification of critical habitat can
be expected to increase the degree of these threats to the species.
Because of this, we have determined that designation of critical
habitat is not prudent. We reach this conclusion largely because of the
pervasive threat of collection (Factor B). The threat of collection
potentially imperils all populations whose geographic locations are
publicized and accessible to the public. Collection results in direct
mortality when whole plants are removed from wild sites, and seed
collection from wild populations for propagation can reduce recruitment
of new individuals and contribute to the decline of those populations.
What remains is a very small number of isolated fragments of former
populations, none of which have viable population sizes. Designation of
critical habitat would publicize locations of the big red sage that are
not currently publicized, which puts those populations at risk for
collection and thus extirpation. Designation of critical habitat would
also not provide any additional conservation benefit to the species
because it does not establish specific land management standards or
prescriptions and only prohibits Federal agencies from carrying out,
funding, or authorizing actions that would destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat, whereas big red sage occurs almost entirely on
private land. Therefore, a designation of critical habitat would not be
advantageous for this species. Since we have determined that the big
red sage is threatened by taking or other human activity and
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the
degree of such threat to the species, in accordance with 50 CFR
424.12(a)(1), we determine that designation of critical habitat is not
prudent for the big red sage.
Required Determinations
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 12988 and by
the Presidential memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in
plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long,
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951, May 4, 1994), E.O. 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), the President's
memorandum of November 30, 2022 (Uniform Standards for Tribal
Consultation; 87 FR 74479, December 5, 2022), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with federally recognized
Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs) on a government-to-
government basis. In accordance with Secretary's Order 3206 of June 5,
1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust
[[Page 7056]]
Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we readily
acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with Tribes in
developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that Tribal
lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to
remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available
to Tribes. We have determined that the big red sage does not occur on
Tribal lands, so no Tribes would be affected if we list the species.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from
the Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of
the Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the Austin
Ecological Services Field Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Plants,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245,
unless otherwise noted.
0
2. In Sec. 17.12, in paragraph (h), amend the List of Endangered and
Threatened Plants by adding an entry for ``Salvia pentstemonoides'' in
alphabetical order under FLOWERING PLANTS to read as follows:
Sec. 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing citations
Scientific name Common name Where listed Status and applicable
rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flowering Plants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Salvia pentstemonoides........... big red sage....... Wherever found..... E [Federal Register
citation when
published as a
final rule].
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2025-01117 Filed 1-17-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P