[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 148 (Tuesday, August 5, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37445-37457]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office []
[FR Doc No: 2025-14809]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2024-0058; FXES1113090FEDR-256-FF09E22000]
RIN 1018-BF57
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of
Virginia Sneezeweed From the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
remove Virginia sneezeweed (Helenium virginicum) from the Federal List
of Endangered and Threatened Plants. Our review indicates that the
threats to Virginia sneezeweed have been eliminated or reduced to the
point that the species no longer meets the definition of an endangered
or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). Accordingly, we propose to delist Virginia sneezeweed.
If we finalize this rule as proposed, the prohibitions and conservation
measures provided by the Act, particularly through sections 7 and 9,
would no longer apply to Virginia sneezeweed.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
October 6, 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 September 19, 2025.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: . In the Search box, enter FWS-R5-ES-2024-0058,
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the
Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search 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-R5-ES-2024-0058, 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 . This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
Availability of supporting materials: This proposed rule and
supporting documents, including the 5-year review and the draft
Recovery Plan, are available online at
under Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2024-0058 and on the Service's Northeast
Region website at /species/virginia-sneezeweed-helenium-virginicum, and in person at the Virginia Field Office (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Troy Andersen, Field Office
Supervisor, Virginia Field Office, 6669 Short Lane, Gloucester, VA
23061; telephone: 804-728-0695. 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-
R5-ES-2024-0058 on for a document that
summarizes this proposed rule.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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 concerned governmental agencies,
Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any
other interested parties concerning this proposed rule.
We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) Reasons we should or should not remove Virginia sneezeweed from
the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants;
(2) Relevant data concerning any threats (or lack thereof) to
Virginia sneezeweed, particularly any data on the possible effects of
climate change as it relates to habitat, as well as the extent of State
protection and management that would be provided to this plant as a
delisted species;
(3) Current or planned activities within the geographic range of
Virginia sneezeweed that may have either a negative or positive impact
on the species; and
(4) Considerations for post-delisting monitoring, including
monitoring protocols and length of time monitoring is needed, as well
as triggers for reevaluation.
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
[[Page 37446]]
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 species or a threatened species must be made
solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data
available.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
If you submit information via , 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 .
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. For
example, based on the new information we receive (and any comments on
that new information), we may conclude that the species should remain
listed as threatened, or we may conclude that the species should be
reclassified from threatened to endangered. 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 (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(5)) provides for a
public hearing on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be
received by the date specified above in DATES. Such requests must be
sent to the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will
schedule a public hearing on this proposal, if requested, and announce
the date, time, and place of the hearing, as well as how to obtain
reasonable accommodations, in the Federal Register and local newspapers
at least 15 days before the hearing. We may hold the public hearing in
person or virtually via webinar. We will announce any public hearing on
our website, in addition to the Federal Register. The use of these
virtual public hearings is consistent with our regulation at 50 CFR
424.16(c)(3).
Peer Review
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 of
listing actions under the Act, we will seek independent scientific
reviews from at least three appropriate and independent specialists
regarding scientific data and interpretations contained in this
proposed rule. We will send copies of this proposed rule to the peer
reviewers immediately following publication in the Federal Register. We
will ensure that the opinions of peer reviewers are objective and
unbiased by following the guidelines set forth in the August 22, 2016,
memorandum, which updates and clarifies Service policy on peer review
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016). The purpose of such review is to
ensure that our decisions are based on scientifically sound data,
assumptions, and analysis. Accordingly, our final decision may differ
from this proposal. Comments from peer reviewers will be posted at
and included in the decision file for the
final rule.
Previous Federal Actions
On November 28, 1983, we published a notice of review in the
Federal Register (48 FR 53640) covering all native plants being
considered for listing as endangered or threatened; we included
Virginia sneezeweed in this notice as a category 2 candidate species.
We defined category 2 candidates as those taxa for which we had
information indicating that listing may be warranted but for which we
lacked sufficient information on status and threats to support issuance
of proposed listing rules. We retained Virginia sneezeweed as a
category 2 candidate species in 1985 (50 FR 39526; September 27, 1985).
In 1990, we designated Virginia sneezeweed as a category 1
candidate species (55 FR 6207; February 21, 1990), and we retained the
species as a category 1 candidate in 1993 (58 FR 51144; September 30,
1993), based largely on the fieldwork completed by the Virginia
Department of Conservation and Recreation's Division of Natural
Heritage (VDCR-DNH) in 1990 and 1991. We defined category 1 candidates
as those taxa for which we had on file sufficient information on
biological vulnerability and threats to support preparation of listing
proposals.
In a notice of review published in the Federal Register on February
28, 1996 (61 FR 7596), we ceased using category designations and
recognized Virginia sneezeweed as simply a candidate species. Candidate
species are those taxa for which we have on file sufficient information
on biological vulnerability and threats to support proposals to list
the species as endangered or threatened.
On September 29, 1997, we published in the Federal Register (62 FR
50896) a proposed rule to list Virginia sneezeweed as a threatened
species under the Act, and on November 3, 1998, we published in the
Federal Register (63 FR 59239) a final rule listing Virginia sneezeweed
as a threatened species under the Act. The final listing rule included
our finding that designating critical habitat was not prudent for the
species.
In September 2000, a draft recovery plan for Virginia sneezeweed
was completed (Service 2000, entire). On October 2, 2000, we published
in the Federal Register (65 FR 58784) a notice of availability of the
draft recovery plan.
We published notices initiating a 5-year review for the species on
December 16, 2008 (73 FR 76373), March 6, 2012 (77 FR 13251), and
August 8, 2018 (83 FR 39113).
In April 2020, a 5-year review was completed (Service 2020,
entire). This review concluded that Virginia sneezeweed's status had
substantially improved since listing and recommended delisting the
species.
Background
Species Information
For more information on the description, biology, ecology, and
habitat of Virginia sneezeweed, refer to the final listing rule (63 FR
59239; November 3, 1998), the Virginia Sneezeweed (Helenium virginicum)
Recovery Plan (draft) (Service 2000, entire), and the Virginia
Sneezeweed (Helenium virginicum) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation
(Service 2020, entire). These documents are available as supporting
materials at under Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-
2024-0058.
Taxonomy and Species Description
Virginia sneezeweed (Helenium virginicum) is a perennial herbaceous
flowering plant in the aster family (Asteraceae), first described in
1936 by S.F. Blake in Augusta County, Virginia (Blake 1936, entire).
Virginia sneezeweed ranges in height from 43 to 112 centimeters
(approximately 1.4 to 3.7 feet) above a rosette of basal leaves (Knox
1987, p. 55). Coarse hairs are visible on the basal and lower stem
leaves. The basal leaves may be broad in the middle tapering toward the
ends, but otherwise may appear oblong. Stem
[[Page 37447]]
leaves are lance-shaped and become progressively smaller from the base
to the tip of the stem. The stems are winged, with the wings being
continuous with the base of the stem leaves. The flower ray petals are
yellow and wedge-shaped with three lobes at the ends. The central disk
of the flower is nearly ball-shaped. Flowering occurs from July to
October. Virginia sneezeweed is separated from the closely related
species of common sneezeweed (H. autumnale) based on multiple
morphological and ecological differences, including height, blooming
period, bolting date, pappus length, and longer basal leaves (Knox
1987, entire).
Distribution and Habitat
Historically, Virginia sneezeweed was first identified on the
shores of shallow, seasonally flooded ponds in Virginia's Shenandoah
Valley. At the time of listing in 1998, the species was present at 30
sites that were grouped into 25 populations based on proximity distance
in Virginia, and one suspected additional occurrence of the species in
Howell County, Missouri, had been identified. Since listing, this
suspected occurrence has been confirmed as Virginia sneezeweed, and an
additional 55 element occurrences (EOs) have been discovered in the
south-central Missouri Ozarks as a result of expanded survey efforts in
those areas.
In 2005, VDCR-DNH revised its occurrence data to follow NatureServe
guidance protocol for distinguishing EOs (NatureServe 2008). The
protocol recommended that two occurrence features separated by less
than 1 kilometer be treated as the same occurrence (population). After
this occurrence data revision, VDCR-DNH grouped the original 30 sites
into 19 EOs in Virginia (Van Alstine 2009, p. 2). Plants have been
observed at three additional sites in Virginia since 2005, but all have
been grouped into existing EOs due to proximity to other populations.
Additionally, one EO was discovered in Hamilton County, Indiana, on
August 14, 2018 (Service 2020, p. 11). In total, the best available
information indicates the existence of 76 EOs of Virginia sneezeweed
across three States (Virginia, Missouri, and Indiana) and four
physiographic provinces (the Blue Ridge and Ridge and Valley in
Virginia, the Plains in Indiana, and the Ozark Plateau in Missouri).
Virginia sneezeweed's optimal habitat includes fluctuating water
levels, little canopy cover, and acidic-to-circumneutral soils with
high organic matter. Persistent shading, flooding, and drought appear
detrimental to populations. Populations of Virginia sneezeweed
occurring in Virginia and Missouri are found in open (unshaded) growing
conditions. The draft recovery plan (Service 2000, entire) cites the
species as being limited to seasonally flooded sinkhole ponds (Knox
1997, p. 237), which is a globally rare habitat. Additional
observations indicate that it can also be found in disturbed sites that
appear as seasonally wet meadows, depressions in lawns, roadside
ditches, and margins of farm ponds in Virginia (Van Alstine 2009, p.
1). In Missouri, Virginia sneezeweed habitat also ranges from less
disturbed sinkhole pond margins and wet meadows to temporary wetlands
in hayfields, roadside ditches, cattle ranches, and rural airports
(Rimer and Summers 2006, p. 520). The species' habitat needs seem to be
met naturally in sinkhole ponds by the variable hydroperiod, soil
chemistry, pond basin morphology, and water depth; other sites where
the species occurs may be the result of human activities that keep the
sites open and help to meet the hydrologic needs of Virginia
sneezeweed. The species appears to outcompete other plants in such
circumstances, which explains its occurrence in highly altered habitats
such as cattle ranches, airports, and roadside ditches (Knox et al.
2016, p. 257).
Biology
Virginia sneezeweed employs a breeding system of self-
incompatibility, which puts small populations at risk of local
extinction (Messmore and Knox 1997, entire). It blooms from early July
through October with a peak in late July to early August. Seed
dispersal occurs in late fall, and dormancy is broken gradually, with
most germination delayed until the next growing season after water has
drawn down (Knox 1997, p. 237).
The species experiences short-term local extirpation of aboveground
plants due to high fluctuations in water levels and specific soil
chemistry, but the species is adapted to the stress induced by these
fluctuations in habitat condition by maintaining an intact seed bank
that allows the plants to regenerate when conditions become favorable.
Water depth and duration of standing water in Virginia sneezeweed
habitats varies greatly year to year (Knox et al. 1999, p. 96);
population sizes and stage class abundances also vary greatly year to
year (Knox et al. 1999, p. 97). Seed stored below ground for at least
11 years retained a high percentage of germinability (Adams et al.
2005, p. 427).
Virginia sneezeweed appears as a basal rosette of leaves in the
first year and then in its second year usually bolts, producing a
single flowering stem that can include 1 to 15 flowering heads
(Messmore and Knox 1997, p. 319). Virginia sneezeweed can live up to 5
years and flower two to three times (Knox 1997, p. 242). There is
limited evidence of vegetative reproduction under experimental
conditions, but this has not been observed in the field. Individual
plants nearly always comprise genets (groups of genetically identical
plants, Knox 1997, p. 237). The dense mats of rosettes seen in some
populations, therefore, probably reflect seed dispersal patterns.
Recovery Criteria
Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement
recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered and
threatened species unless we determine that such a plan will not
promote the conservation of the species. Under section 4(f)(1)(B)(ii),
recovery plans must, to the maximum extent practicable, include
objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would result in a
determination, in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the
Act, that the species be removed from the Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
Recovery plans provide a roadmap for us and our partners on methods
of enhancing conservation and minimizing threats to listed species, as
well as measurable criteria against which to evaluate progress towards
recovery and assess the species' likely future condition. However, they
are not regulatory documents and do not substitute for the
determinations and promulgation of regulations required under section
4(a)(1) of the Act. A decision to revise the status of a species or to
delist a species is ultimately based on an analysis of the best
scientific and commercial data available to determine whether a species
is no longer an endangered species or a threatened species, regardless
of whether that information differs from the recovery plan.
There are many paths to accomplishing recovery of a species, and
recovery may be achieved without all of the criteria in a recovery plan
being fully met. For example, one or more criteria may be exceeded
while other criteria may not yet be accomplished. In that instance, we
may determine that the threats are minimized sufficiently and that the
species is robust enough that it no longer meets the Act's definition
of an endangered species or a threatened
[[Page 37448]]
species. In other cases, we may discover new recovery opportunities
after having finalized the recovery plan. Parties seeking to conserve
the species may use these opportunities instead of methods identified
in the recovery plan. Likewise, we may learn new information about the
species after we finalize the recovery plan. The new information may
change the extent to which existing criteria are appropriate for
identifying recovery of the species. The recovery of a species is a
dynamic process requiring adaptive management that may, or may not,
follow all of the guidance provided in a recovery plan.
The listing of the Virginia sneezeweed spurred greater survey
effort and ensured that protections were secured for populations,
inextricably linking these efforts to recovery. The draft Virginia
sneezeweed recovery plan (Service 2000, p. 23) states that the primary
objective of the recovery program is to enable removal of the species
from the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants. It established five
conditions as criteria for delisting.
Delisting Criterion 1: Twenty self-sustaining populations and their
habitats are permanently protected across this species' Virginia range.
Minimal management actions may be occasionally required.
At the time of listing, there were 25 known populations of the
species in Virginia across 30 individual sites and one suspected, but
not confirmed, occurrence in Missouri. As noted above, the population
figure was subsequently revised downward to 19 populations across the
30 sites due to the proximity of some occurrences. Five of the original
25 populations were located on U.S. Forest Service (USFS) lands, and
the remaining 20 were on private lands. The purpose of the first
delisting criterion was to increase the number of populations
persisting in protected habitats with limited need for active
management to sustain them. When met, the criterion would reflect a
resulting increase in the species' viability.
The specific number of permanently protected populations identified
in the criterion has not been met. However, new information obtained
since the draft recovery plan (Service 2000, entire) was written
provides new context for assessing the species' viability. When this
criterion was written, the species was confirmed only in Virginia. The
draft recovery plan indicates that if the need for additional survey
work in Missouri and intervening States is indicated by the genetic
confirmation of the first Missouri site as Virginia sneezeweed, the
number of populations to be protected would be reassessed. The species
has since been confirmed to occur in Missouri and Indiana, resulting in
a total of 76 known populations (EOs) across three States; however,
this recovery criterion was not revised or finalized to reflect and
consider the new information.
Of the 76 total EOs across the species' range, a total of 15 EOs
(20 percent of all EOs) occur on State or Federal lands offering
permanent protection (see table 1, below). In Virginia, two EOs are on
State-owned land (VDCR) and six EOs are on Federal land (USFS). The EOs
on State-owned land are within Natural Area Preserves specifically
dedicated to preserving the rare sinkhole pond habitats where Virginia
sneezeweed occurs. The USFS manages the wetland areas where Virginia
sneezeweed occurs on USFS land because they are rich in biodiversity,
karst features, vernal pools, and cultural resources. Current
protection and management efforts for these eight EOs will continue
regardless of whether Virginia sneezeweed remains a federally listed
species (Wright 2019, pers. comm.). In Missouri, six EOs are on State-
owned land (Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC)), where they are
protected from disturbance that might be detrimental; a change in
Federal listing status is unlikely to change these protections and
beneficial management (Rimer 2019b, pers. comm.). In Indiana, the
single EO is on a 127-acre parcel with 42 acres designated as a State
Nature Preserve and 85 acres under a conservation easement governed by
the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (Stolz 2019, pers. comm.).
The EO occurs on the conservation easement portion of the property.
Given that these protections were in place prior to the discovery of
this population, a change in listing status for Virginia sneezeweed
would not change current protections for the Indiana population.
In Missouri, an additional six EOs (8 percent of all EOs) are on
Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) and Howell County Road
Commission rights-of-way. While these are not considered protected
based on land ownership, MoDOT has worked in partnership with MDC and
the Service to implement informed and active site management (e.g.,
scheduling/planning spraying or mowing to minimize impacts to Virginia
sneezeweed on site). The MoDOT environmental review process ensures
that they are aware of Virginia sneezeweed locations. MDC provides
updated information quarterly to MoDOT via a cooperative agreement to
ensure that MoDOT is aware of new Virginia sneezeweed sites that may
have been discovered. MoDOT has also contacted MDC and the Service
(Missouri Field Office) to assist with preconstruction surveys for
Virginia sneezeweed in locations where the plant is not known but
populations are nearby (Rimer 2019a, pers. comm.). If the Federal
listing status for Virginia sneezeweed were to change, the species
would retain an S3 NatureServe ranking in Missouri, indicating a
species that is at moderate risk of extirpation in Missouri due to a
fairly restricted range, relatively few populations or occurrences,
recent and widespread declines, threats, or other factors (NatureServe
2020, unpaginated). MoDOT will continue to coordinate these efforts
that benefit Virginia sneezeweed since it will remain a species of
conservation concern in Missouri (Briggler 2019, pers. comm.).
The remaining 55 EOs (72 percent of all EOs) are on privately owned
lands (44 in Missouri and 11 in Virginia). Their status in regard to
threats is discussed below under Summary of Biological Status and
Threats. Thus, while the numerical threshold set out in this delisting
criterion has not been met as it was originally worded, the intention
was to increase protected occurrences of the species in order to
increase species' viability. There are more than three times the
original number of populations now known to exist across three States.
Of those populations, 20 percent are permanently protected, with
another 8 percent likely to benefit from ongoing structural
protections. The overall increase in both number of protected EOs and
the overall range increases both redundancy and representation,
therefore increasing the species' viability. Therefore, the original
intent of this criterion has been fulfilled.
Delisting Criterion 2: Monitoring over 15 years indicates that
populations in the 20 sites have long-term viability.
The purpose of this criterion was to confirm that an adequate
number of populations (redundancy) were both protected and sufficiently
resilient over a reasonable duration to reflect long-term viability of
the species. As noted above, there are now more than three times the
number of populations known at the time of listing, and 20 percent of
these populations are protected. Regarding resiliency, regular
monitoring of EOs over 15 years has not occurred at the majority of
sites; 12 EOs in Virginia have been observed multiple times over at
least 15 years. No EOs in Missouri have been observed multiple times
over 15 years, but 19 EOs have been observed multiple times over at
least 10 years, including all 6 that occur
[[Page 37449]]
on Federal or State lands. Overall, a total of 12 EOs (16 percent of
all EOs) have been observed multiple times at varying intervals over 15
years (all in Virginia), and 34 EOs (45 percent of all EOs) have been
observed multiple times over at least 10 years, including 11 of the 15
EOs that occur on protected lands across the species' range. The EO in
Indiana was just discovered in 2018, making 10 to 15 years of
monitoring data for this EO unattainable.
In addition, the draft recovery plan (Service 2000, pp. 23, 27-28)
did not define ``long-term viability,'' and several of the recovery
tasks involve determining viability for the species, none of which have
been accomplished. The figures quantifying observations of EOs above
reflect presence over time but not necessarily condition of the EO,
which also is relevant to resiliency and, therefore, viability.
However, for each observation of a Virginia sneezeweed population, a
surveyor assigned an EO rank based on observations beyond population
size, including habitat conditions at the site at the time of the
survey, conditions over time since its last observation (when
applicable), and probability of persistence. EO rankings present a
challenge in terms of interpreting viability because they are based on
a snapshot in time of the condition of each EO at its most recent
observation. However, given the limited available information for
Virginia sneezeweed, we consider the EO rank to be the most meaningful
way to describe a population's status, as it requires an in-person
observation and combines multiple components of a population's
condition into a single metric.
We evaluated each population's resiliency by using the most recent
EO rank (see table 1, below). We considered populations with EO ranks
of A, AB, or AC ``excellent;'' populations with EO ranks of B, BC, or
BD ``good;'' populations with EO ranks of C or CD ``fair;'' and
populations with EO ranks of D or E ``poor.'' Because the sample size
for EOs observed over 15 years is small and skewed with only Virginia
populations, we looked at all 34 EOs observed over at least 10 years.
Based on EO ranks, 8 have excellent resiliency, 6 have good resiliency,
15 have fair resiliency, and 5 have poor resiliency. Therefore, while
20 populations have not been monitored for 15 years as specified in the
recovery criterion, there has been long-term monitoring over at least
10 years for 34 sites. Eighty-five percent of these sites have fair to
excellent resiliency, which increases the species' overall viability.
Of note, 11 of the 15 populations on protected lands have had multiple
visits over at least 10 years, and all 11 have an EO rank of fair to
excellent. Given this, we conclude the original intent of this recovery
criterion is met.
Table 1--Virginia Sneezeweed EO Protected Status and Rank Summarized by State
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EO Rank
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of EOs
State Total number permanently Excellent (number Good (number Fair (number Poor (number
of EOs protected protected) protected) protected) protected)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Virginia.................................... 19 8 5 (5) 3 (0) 6 (1) 5 (2)
Missouri.................................... 56 6 6 (4) 18 (1) 24 (1) 8 (0)
Indiana..................................... 1 1 ................. 1 (1) ................. .................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................... 76 15 11 (9) 22 (2) 30 (2) 13 (2)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delisting Criterion 3: Life-history and ecological requirements are
understood sufficiently to allow for effective protection, monitoring,
and, as needed, management.
This criterion has been met. Research on the Virginia populations
(Knox 1997, entire; Knox et al. 1999, entire) and Missouri populations
(Rimer and Summers 2006, entire) has expanded knowledge of the life-
history and ecological requirements of Virginia sneezeweed, allowing
for effective protection, monitoring, and management.
Delisting Criterion 4: Seeds representing the range of genetic
diversity in H. virginicum are placed in long-term storage to provide a
source of genetic material in the event of in situ extinction.
Since this delisting criterion was drafted, seeds have been
acquired and placed in long-term storage from six EOs from four
counties in Missouri, but no seeds have been collected and stored from
Virginia (Townsend 2019, pers. comm.). Information on the high levels
of genetic variation at the species level and high population structure
indicates that to represent the entire range of genetic diversity
(i.e., representation), seeds would likely need to be collected and
placed in long-term storage from Virginia EOs and additional Missouri
EOs to satisfy this criterion (Knox et al. 2016, entire; Service 2020,
p. 31). Furthermore, if ongoing research indicates the Indiana
population is naturally occurring and distinct from the other regions,
seeds will need to be collected and put into long-term storage from
this region to capture a fuller range of the species' genetic diversity
and to meet this criterion (Williams et al. 2021, entire; Service 2020,
p. 31).
Given the number of EOs now found in Virginia, Missouri, and
Indiana, the species has more representation (adaptive capacity) than
previously thought; thus, preservation of a wider range of genetic
material from multiple regions would be necessary to meet this
criterion. While this criterion has not been met, the intent of the
criterion was to preserve genetic material given in situ extinction
risk, which is now considerably lower given the overall increase in
species' viability since the time of listing (see Viability Analysis,
below).
Delisting Criterion 5: The population and habitat of the Missouri
Helenium sp., if it is determined to be H. virginicum, are permanently
protected and seeds placed in long-term storage.
The original intent of this criterion has been met. Importantly,
this criterion was developed prior to the discovery of the additional
55 EOs in Missouri. This information renders this criterion duplicative
of delisting criteria (1) and (4) above. The referenced Missouri
population was determined to be H. virginicum (Simurda and Knox 2000,
entire; Simurda et al. 2005, entire). Seeds from this site were
collected in the early 2000s and have been placed in long-term storage
(Rimer 2018, pers. comm.). This site is owned by the Howell County Road
Commission and is not permanently protected. It is a managed site, and
the responsible agency works with MDC and the Service
[[Page 37450]]
to minimize impacts to Virginia sneezeweed from mowing, spraying, and
other activities. It is unclear whether this coordination would
continue if Virginia sneezeweed were no longer a federally listed
species; however, this is 1 of 56 EOs in Missouri. In terms of
preserving genetic material and habitat (representation) in Missouri,
the six EOs in Missouri on protected State lands and the collection of
seeds for long-term storage from six EOs in Missouri meet this
criterion's original intent.
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. The determination to delist a
species must be based on an analysis of the same five factors.
We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat''
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action
or condition or the action or condition itself.
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all
identified threats by considering the species' expected response and
the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and conditions
that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, population, and
species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the
species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on
the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the
threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have
positive effects on the species--such as any existing regulatory
mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether
the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' or a
``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative analysis
and describing the expected effect on the species now and in the
foreseeable future.
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 ).
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
To assess Virginia sneezeweed's viability, we used the three
conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and
representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly,
resiliency is the ability of the species to withstand environmental and
demographic stochasticity (e.g., wet or dry, warm or cold years);
redundancy is the ability of the species to withstand catastrophic
events (e.g., droughts, large pollution events), and representation is
the ability of the species to adapt to both near-term and long-term
changes in the physical and biological environment (e.g., 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.
Summary of Biological Status and Threats
In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the
species and its resources, and the threats that influence the species'
current and future condition, in order to assess the species' overall
viability and the risks to that viability. In addition, the 5-year
review (Service 2020, entire) documents our comprehensive biological
status review for the species, including an assessment of the potential
threats to the species.
The following is a summary of this status review and the best
available information gathered since that time that have informed this
decision.
At the time of listing, habitat modification and associated
hydrological disruption (through residential development, incompatible
agricultural practices, filling and ditching of wetland habitats, and
groundwater withdrawal) were identified as the primary threats to
Virginia sneezeweed (63 FR 59239; November 3, 1998). Restricted range
and small number of populations (Factor E), invasive species (Factor
E), climate change (Factor E), and the inadequacy of State or Federal
mechanisms to protect
[[Page 37451]]
Virginia sneezeweed habitat at that time (Factor D) were also discussed
as factors contributing to the species' threatened status.
Since the publication of the final listing rule (63 FR 59239;
November 3, 1998), these threats and/or their known impact on the
species have been significantly reduced. The previously perceived risk
of extinction has also been reduced due to an increase in both the
known geographic range and number of Virginia sneezeweed populations.
The following analysis evaluates the previously identified threats, any
other threats currently facing the species, as well as threats that are
reasonably likely to affect the species within the foreseeable future
if the species is delisted and the Act's protections are removed.
To establish the foreseeable future for Virginia sneezeweed, we
evaluated trends from historical data on distribution and abundance,
ongoing conservation efforts, factors currently affecting the species,
and predictions of future climate change and land development. Virginia
sneezeweed was listed as threatened under the Act in 1998 (63 FR 59239;
November 3, 1998), and the species has been monitored for at least 20
years (with some populations having been monitored before listing).
These historical data provide insight into Virginia sneezeweed's
exposure and response to potential threats under varying conditions. We
used the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Forecasting Scenarios of Land-
use Change (FORE-SCE) land cover model to evaluate land use changes to
2100 in the counties where Virginia sneezeweed occurs. We also used
region-specific downscaled climate models for both the mid-Atlantic
highlands region (which includes Virginia sneezeweed's Virginia range)
and the Missouri Ozarks to evaluate future climate change impacts to
hydrology throughout the species' range to 2100. Given our
understanding of the best available data, for the purposes of this
proposed rule, we consider the foreseeable future for Virginia
sneezeweed to extend to the year 2100.
Habitat Modifications and Hydrological Disruption
At the time of listing, the principal threats impacting Virginia
sneezeweed were identified as habitat modification and the associated
direct and indirect disruption of hydrology. Specific sources of
threats identified included residential development, incompatible
agricultural practices, filling and ditching of wetland habitat, and
groundwater withdrawal.
Among the sites that have been visited multiple times since the
species was listed, six sites in Virginia representing four EOs were
documented in 2006-2008 to have habitat degradation in the form of
hydrological modification from deepening portions of ponds or digging
drainage ditches; at one of these sites, a large pile of soil
introduced sediment into the habitat. In addition, decreased cattle
grazing and mowing may have played a role in declines at some of these
sites, most likely because those activities typically reduce competing
vegetation (Van Alstine 2007, pp. 5-12; 2009, pp. 6-11; Service 2020,
pp. 10, 17, 19). There is no evidence of hydrological impacts to sites
in Virginia from other sources or activities. Despite the identified
habitat degradation, these sites were noted at the time as still
supporting several hundred to 10,000 plants per site. However, those
figures represented significant declines in abundance when compared to
estimates from the 1980s despite shorter term increases in abundance
that had been observed at the sites in the intervening period.
According to the VDCR's EO records, three of those six sites have
been visited since 2008. One site record indicates an incidental
roadside observation of 200+ flowering plants in 2017, but no formal
survey was conducted. Another site record indicates a few large
rosettes observed in a culvert but generally dry habitat conditions in
2010. The third site was observed in 2010, when thousands of robust
plants were observed, and again in 2017 during a pollinator survey,
when observers did not survey specifically for Virginia sneezeweed but
estimated 500 to 600 flower heads in early August. No additional
comments were recorded in the EO records regarding any changes to the
habitat quantity or quality at these three sites. While the abundance
of aboveground plants continues to fluctuate as described previously,
these more recent observations indicate that populations on at least
three of the six sites considered to have suffered degradation have
continued to persist and their EO rank has not changed over the course
of these additional observations.
In addition to hydrological modification, habitat degradation has
occurred through unauthorized all-terrain vehicle (ATV) traffic at two
EOs on land owned by the USFS and at pond habitat on private lands in
Virginia. The use of ATVs through ponds or on pond margins can damage
or destroy aboveground plants, disturb the seed bank, and create
pooling or other hydrologic changes in the microenvironment due to tire
ruts. At one USFS site, tire ruts, tree cutting, and dump sites were
documented. The USFS is actively coordinating with their law
enforcement division on mitigation efforts, and citations have been
issued to several individuals. Given these efforts, which are unrelated
to the status of Virginia sneezeweed under the Act, and the small
number of EOs currently affected throughout the species' range, ATV and
other vehicle traffic is not considered to be a significant influence
on the species' overall viability, and therefore not a threat impacting
the status of the species. We lack direct observational data for many
of the remaining EOs in Virginia; however, land use within Virginia
sneezeweed's range in the State has been reasonably stable. Clearing
land for pasture has also been observed as a land use change on private
property within the species' range. This type of alteration may be
beneficial for Virginia sneezeweed by eliminating encroaching
vegetation that provides shade, leaving the species with its preferred
open/unshaded habitat.
There are limited direct observational data for many EOs in
Missouri; however, core areas where EOs exist on private lands do not
lend themselves to hydrological alteration, as the soils are not
suitable for row crop agriculture that often involves digging ditches
for proper drainage. There have been a few observations of farmers
modifying ponds at Missouri sites, but disturbed Virginia sneezeweed
populations have been documented persisting or reemerging from the seed
bank within 1 to 2 years post-disturbance at those sites (Rimer 2019a,
pers. comm.). There is no evidence of documented habitat alteration
beyond the pond (hydrological) changes noted at observed sites in
Missouri.
In Indiana, the single EO is on a 127-acre parcel with 42 acres
designated as a State Nature Preserve and 85 acres under a conservation
easement governed by the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (Stolz
2019, pers. comm.). Given that these protections were in place prior to
the recent discovery of this population, it is unlikely that habitat
modifications are a recent or current threat for this population.
There are currently protections or site-specific management
activities in place at 21 sites across Virginia sneezeweed's range that
benefit more than a quarter of known populations and are expected to
remain in place post-delisting. However, the majority of Virginia
sneezeweed populations occur on private lands. The continued
observation of Virginia sneezeweed at
[[Page 37452]]
most known sites with multiple visits over time suggests individual EOs
have enough resiliency (large enough seed banks) for plants to
reestablish when habitat conditions become favorable after periods of
unsuitability and can withstand and even benefit from some level of
anthropogenic habitat disturbance. Given this resiliency and the small
number of EOs that have been observed to be impacted by hydrological
disturbance due to habitat modification, the best available information
does not reflect that habitat modification is currently affecting the
species' viability.
Virginia sneezeweed populations on private lands may be subject to
land use changes; however, according to projections of future
urbanization and the best available information on agricultural
practices, we do not expect significant increases in the percent of
land area that becomes developed in counties where Virginia sneezeweed
occurs (Nakicenovic et al. 2000, entire; Sohl et al. 2014, entire; Sohl
et al. 2018, entire). Some small increases are projected for
agricultural areas in counties of occurrence, primarily hay/pasture
lands; however, managed and scheduled pasturing (mowing, cattle
grazing, and spraying) appears to be a land use compatible with the
maintenance of Virginia sneezeweed populations as it reduced
competition with invasive plant species (Van Alstine 2009, pp. iv-v, 6-
11, 20). Thus, we do not think hydrological disruption, due to land use
or climate change (see Effects of Climate Change, below), is likely to
significantly impact the species' viability within the foreseeable
future.
We expect the threat of unauthorized ATV or other vehicle use to
remain the same or decrease in the future due to active management
efforts by the USFS, as described above.
Invasive Species
Although invasive species were listed as a potential threat to
Virginia sneezeweed at the time of listing in 1998, invasive species
are not currently known to be a threat at any of the EOs in Virginia or
Indiana (Townsend 2021, pers. comm.). In Missouri, encroaching invasive
species like spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe) have been identified
as a threat for several of the six EOs on State road rights-of-way.
Spotted knapweed is a biennial or short-lived perennial that forms a
deep taproot, easily establishes in disturbed areas, and produces a
large quantity of seed. Once established, spotted knapweed becomes a
solid stand that can outcompete native species, including Virginia
sneezeweed. Spotted knapweed has been spread along highway and road
corridors by mowing equipment. Eleven percent of Missouri EOs (which is
8 percent of the total EOs) occur along roadways and are exposed to
this threat. The routine mowing and spraying along roadways that MoDOT
carries out in coordination with MDC to address invasive species
minimizes impacts to Virginia sneezeweed.
In Virginia, the potential for invasives to become a threat in the
future is linked to changes in land use that may introduce or encourage
the spread of invasives (e.g., conversion of sinkhole pond habitat to
pastureland could introduce competition from pasture grasses or other
agricultural invasives) or encourage pesticide use (Townsend 2021,
pers. comm.). Localized land use changes that may affect individual
populations are difficult to project into the future on the private
lands where more than half of Virginia sneezeweed populations in
Virginia occur. However, as discussed above, wider-scale land use
changes in Virginia are projected to involve small increases in
agricultural areas and uses, which the best available information
suggests is compatible with Virginia sneezeweed and tends to decrease,
rather than increase, competition from invasive plant species.
Although current roadside maintenance efforts in Missouri to mow
and spray spotted knapweed and other encroaching invasive species would
no longer be required of MoDOT if Virginia sneezeweed were no longer
federally listed, MDC is confident MoDOT will continue to coordinate
these efforts that benefit Virginia sneezeweed because it will remain a
species of conservation concern in Missouri (Briggler 2019, pers.
comm.). Therefore, we expect this threat to the six Missouri EOs to
stay the same or decrease in the future due to these active management
efforts. We thus conclude that the best available data do not indicate
that encroaching invasive species will threaten the viability of
Virginia sneezeweed into the foreseeable future.
Effects of Climate Change
The effects of climate change could result in significant changes
in hydrology in Virginia sneezeweed's habitat. The rate, spatial
distribution, direction, and magnitude of changes, as well as the
buffering effects of habitat heterogeneity and the adaptive capacity of
the species, are sources of uncertainty in assessing Virginia
sneezeweed's response to the effects of climate change. Best scientific
and commercial data available indicate droughts and flooding associated
with rapidly changing climate within the range of Virginia sneezeweed
have the potential to negatively influence populations because the
timing and magnitude of inundation play a large role in reproduction
and survival. Wetlands that depend primarily on precipitation for their
water supply are more vulnerable to changes in climate than wetlands
that depend on regional groundwater flow systems (Winter 2000, p. 305)
and Virginia sneezeweed occurs in both types of wetlands.
In modeling the most likely future scenario (Service 2020, pp. 27-
29), we assume that EOs with current viability of fair or better have
sufficient resiliency to continue to exist under future predicted
climatic changes while EOs with a current ranking of poor are likely to
be extirpated if further stressed by predicted changes in climatic
patterns that may result in increased floods and drought. Even with the
uncertainty associated with predicting climate effects, the best
available projections do not indicate that conditions will become so
unfavorable within the species' range that Virginia sneezeweed
populations could not continue to occupy most current habitats or
establish new populations where appropriate conditions exist. Thus, we
are taking a conservative approach by assuming EOs that currently have
poor resiliency will not be able to tolerate the additional stress
imposed by climatic changes to their habitats and would be extirpated.
That means 5 EOs in Virginia (26 percent of Virginia populations) and 8
EOs in Missouri (14 percent of Missouri populations) are likely to be
extirpated, leaving 63 EOs (83 percent of current extant populations)
remaining across three States and four physiographic provinces. At the
population level, resiliency is likely to decrease somewhat for some
populations in the face of climatic changes causing increased flooding
and drought (and, therefore, causing increased stress on the species
where it occurs). Redundancy overall will be reduced due to the loss of
13 EOs. Because each population is likely to be genetically distinct
based on the best available information, the loss of 17 percent of
current extant populations is likely to reduce genetic diversity and
lower representation. Despite these losses, the species will continue
to exist in a range of habitat types and across all four physiographic
provinces throughout its range. Given these data and the current known
distribution of populations, we conclude that the effects of climate
change will not threaten the viability of the species within the
foreseeable future.
[[Page 37453]]
Restricted Range and Small Number of Populations
The final listing rule (63 FR 59239; November 3, 1998) noted that
threats to Virginia sneezeweed were compounded by the species'
restricted range and the small number of populations. At the time of
listing, the species was known to occur in 25 EOs in two counties in
Virginia. The species has now been found in 76 EOs across 12 counties
in three States and four physiographic provinces. Thus, because of this
significant expansion in both the known range and number of
populations, redundancy for the species is greater than recognized at
the time of listing (i.e., the chance of stochastic or catastrophic
events extirpating a significant number of EOs is lower), and we no
longer consider the species' range or number of populations to be a
compounding threat now or within the foreseeable future.
Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms
There are numerous conservation efforts in progress or completed
that benefit Virginia sneezeweed viability, including ongoing surveys
of known occupied and suitable habitat in Missouri; biological,
genetic, and ecological research that have expanded our knowledge of
Virginia sneezeweed; successful reintroduction and seed banking
programs in Missouri; and implementation of roadside maintenance best
management practices that avoid and minimize impacts to roadside
Virginia sneezeweed EOs. The designation of two Natural Area Preserves
in Virginia and active management on other public lands by MDC, VDCR-
DNH, and USFS would also continue to benefit a total of 15 EOs
following removal from protections of the Act.
Numerous State regulations in Virginia, Missouri, and Indiana
benefit Virginia sneezeweed. The species is State-listed as endangered
in Virginia, Missouri, and Indiana; however, most of the documented EOs
are located on private land, so there is limited protection under State
endangered species laws.
In Virginia, the species is listed as endangered under the Virginia
Endangered Plant and Insect Species Act (see title 3.2, chapter 10,
sections 3.2-1000 et seq. of the Code of Virginia); receives habitat
protections via the ``no net loss'' wetland policy established under
the Virginia Water Protection permit program (section 62.1-44.15:20 of
the Code of Virginia); and is further protected via the permit program
through regulation of fill for development, water resource projects,
infrastructure development, and mining projects. The program regulates
all State waters and issues permits in parallel with U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) permits issued under section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.); these Corps permits are referred to below
as ``Clean Water Act 404'' permits. A State/Corps joint permit is
needed to alter the physical, chemical, or biological properties of
regulated State waters and make them detrimental for various uses;
excavate in wetlands; or conduct activities in a wetland: that cause
significant alteration or degradation of existing wetland acreage or
functions. The Virginia Water Protection permit program may also
provide some protection for Virginia sneezeweed habitat within the area
of influence of proposed development projects in Virginia that require
Clean Water Act 404 permits, regardless of the species' Federal listing
status under the Act.
Virginia sneezeweed is listed as endangered by the State of
Missouri; State listing occurs automatically in the State when a
species becomes federally listed under the Act (see Revised Statutes of
Missouri at section 252.240).
In Indiana, the species is currently listed as endangered by the
State (see title 14, article 22, chapter 34 of the Indiana Code (IC 14-
22-34)). There is no direct protection for State-listed plant species
of conservation concern in Indiana; however, indirect protection is
afforded to listed plants via other Indiana State laws and acts. The
Virginia sneezeweed EO in Indiana is located on a conservation easement
granted by the Town of Fishers to the Indiana Department of Natural
Resources, perpetually preserving the property in its predominantly
natural condition. Furthermore, the property is located within the
Ritchey Woods Nature Preserve, which implements its own restrictions
(details of both the easement and further restrictions are provided in
the 5-year review; see Service 2020, pp. 21-22).
If the protections of the Act were to be removed in the future,
Virginia sneezeweed is likely to remain State-listed in Virginia
(Townsend 2021, pers. comm.). In the event the species is also removed
from the State list, a survey and other recommendations may be
suggested but would not be required of the applicant by VDEQ (Hypes
2019, pers. comm.). In Missouri, if protections of the Act were to be
removed in the future, Virginia sneezeweed also would be removed from
the State list unless it is independently designated as rare or
endangered by the state. However, Virginia sneezeweed would remain
ranked in Missouri as an S3 species (``Vulnerable in the [S]tate due to
a restricted range, relatively few populations or occurrences, recent
and widespread declines, or other factors making it vulnerable to
extirpation''; MDC 2023, p. 8).
Synergistic Effects
Many of the potential stressors discussed in this analysis could
work in concert with each other and result in a cumulative adverse
effect to Virginia sneezeweed (i.e., one stressor may make the species
more vulnerable to the effects of other threats). For example,
stressors related to habitat modification/degradation that individually
do not rise to the level of a threat could, in combination with a
restricted range and small number of populations, present a potential
concern. However, most of the potential stressors that were originally
believed to put Virginia sneezeweed in danger of extinction either have
not materialized to the extent originally anticipated at the time of
listing or are adequately managed as described in this document.
Synergistic interactions are possible between the effects of climate
change and effects of other threats, such as nonnative plant invasion.
Higher temperatures and longer growing seasons could also result in a
higher prevalence of invasive plants; however, the evidence that
Virginia sneezeweed outcompetes invasive species when disturbed (e.g.,
by mowing, grazing, and chemical spraying) suggests stressful
conditions associated with fluctuating hydrology and soil conditions
(high levels of aluminum and low pH) could continue to give Virginia
sneezeweed a competitive advantage over other plants. Furthermore, the
increases documented in the number, distribution, and size of many
populations since the species was listed in 1998 alleviate concerns of
potential compounding effects due to small range and few populations
and do not indicate that cumulative effects of various activities and
stressors are affecting the viability of the species.
Viability Analysis
Using the framework of resiliency, representation, and redundancy
(discussed above under Analytical Framework), we can evaluate the
current biological status of Virginia sneezeweed. Since the species'
listing in 1998, work by partner agencies has led to significant
improvements in our understanding of the biology and life history of
the species, the discovery of 60 new occupied sites, and actions (e.g.,
successful reintroductions, seed
[[Page 37454]]
banking, management of invasive species, habitat protection) to
mitigate threats to many populations across the species' range. In
particular, the discovery of 60 new occurrences in different regions
significantly expands the geographic range and increases redundancy and
representation for the species.
Notwithstanding some indications that up to six sites representing
four EOs in Virginia show substantial reductions in abundance when
compared to several decades ago, the species' continued existence at
monitored sites despite large fluctuations in abundance over time and
the broader range of habitats that it now is known to occupy suggest
that resiliency overall is reasonably high. Across the range, 43
percent of EOs are classified as having excellent to good resiliency,
40 percent have fair resiliency, and 17 percent have poor resiliency.
Based on the best available data, habitat alterations associated
with climate change have the most potential to adversely affect
Virginia sneezeweed populations, although given the uncertainty
(described above), the weight of evidence does not indicate any
reliable amount of likely adverse effects. Other threats do not appear
to be substantial or immediate at the species level. Because there is
high genetic diversity at the species level, maintaining robust
representation for Virginia sneezeweed will require a sufficient number
of genetically distinct EOs across the species' range. After examining
the species' most likely future condition, it appears that changes in
hydrology due to climate change could result in the extirpation of up
to 13 EOs or 17 percent of extant populations. The EOs most vulnerable
to extirpation have the smallest populations, and records show that
populations with multiple observations have continued to exist at low
population levels since they were originally discovered. While the loss
of 17 percent of populations would have a proportional effect on
genetic diversity given that the populations are genetically distinct
from each other, a much smaller percentage of the actual abundance
would be lost. Extirpated populations would be spread through the
species' range and would not result in any significant contraction of
the overall range--the species would still occur in three States and
all four physiographic provinces throughout its range. In our future
scenario, the remaining 61 EOs would maintain 83 percent of the current
genetic diversity, more than 83 percent of the current abundance, and
the vast majority of the current overall spatial distribution.
Overall, we have a better understanding of extinction risk for
Virginia sneezeweed as a result of years of survey efforts to locate
additional populations. Virginia sneezeweed's risk of extinction is
much lower now than when it was listed, largely due to our increased
understanding of previously unknown populations, in combination with
seed banking and propagation and recovery efforts. Considering our
modeled ``most likely'' future scenario in the 5-year review for
Virginia sneezeweed (Service 2020, entire), it is apparent that the
risk that threats would manifest in such a way as to cause the species
to be or become in danger of extinction now or within the foreseeable
future is very low.
Determination of Virginia Sneezeweed'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 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 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 have found that significant threats to Virginia sneezeweed
at the time of listing (63 FR 59239: November 3, 1998) have been
eliminated or materially reduced, no significant new threats have
emerged, and viability has increased (see Viability Analysis, above).
The primary threats identified for the species at the time of
listing in 1998 were habitat modification and the associated
disruptions of hydrology (Factor A) through residential development,
incompatible agricultural practices, filling and ditching of wetland
habitats, and groundwater withdrawal. While some habitats occupied by
Virginia sneezeweed are exposed to these threats, some are protected
from these threats, and many new populations discovered since listing
are not likely to be exposed to these threats. Since listing, Virginia
sneezeweed is known to occur in 10 additional counties in 2 additional
States. The discovery of these additional populations throughout an
expanded range and the continued existence of Virginia sneezeweed EOs
indicates that the negative effects from threats identified at listing
in 1998 have not materialized.
The final listing rule (63 FR 59239; November 3, 1998) also
discussed restricted range and small number of populations (Factor E),
invasion of exotic species (Factor E), climate change (Factor E), and
inadequate regulatory mechanisms for preventing habitat destruction
(Factor D) as factors contributing to the species' threatened status.
However, our review of the status of and listing factors for Virginia
sneezeweed indicates: (1) a large increase in both geographic range and
number of occurrences across the range due to new population
discoveries; (2) resiliency to existing and potential threats; (3) the
protection of 15 extant occurrences located on Federal and State
conservation lands and 6 extant occurrences on State and County highway
rights-of-way that through regulations or established management
practices prevent habitat destruction or removal of plants; and (4) the
implementation of conservation efforts that benefit the species.
Therefore, we determine that these factors no longer present a
significant threat to the species. We further determine that there is
no evidence that overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes (Factor B) or disease or predation
(Factor C) are current threats to Virginia sneezeweed. Climate change
and potential land use changes affecting hydrology in Virginia
sneezeweed habitats, as discussed above, are expected across the
species' range, and while the magnitude and spatial/temporal
distribution of these influences are highly uncertain, they are not
expected to put the species at risk of extinction within the
foreseeable future. Thus, after assessing the best available scientific
information, we conclude that Virginia sneezeweed is not in danger of
extinction now or likely
[[Page 37455]]
to become so within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range. Having determined that Virginia sneezeweed is not in
danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable
future throughout all of its range, we now consider whether it may be
in danger of extinction (i.e., endangered) or likely to become so
within the foreseeable future (i.e., threatened) in a significant
portion of its range--that is, whether there is any portion of the
species' range for which both (1) the portion is significant; and (2)
the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so
within the foreseeable future in that portion. Depending on the case,
it might be more efficient for us to address the ``significance''
question or the ``status'' question first. We can choose to address
either question first. Regardless of which question we address first,
if we reach a negative answer with respect to the first question that
we address, we do not need to evaluate the other question for that
portion of the species' range.
In undertaking this analysis for Virginia sneezeweed, we chose to
evaluate the status question first. We began by identifying portions of
the range where the biological status of the species may be different
from its biological status elsewhere in its range. For this purpose, we
considered information pertaining to the geographic distribution of (a)
individuals of the species, (b) the threats that the species faces, and
(c) the resiliency condition of populations.
We evaluated the range of Virginia sneezeweed to determine if the
species is in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the
foreseeable future in any portion of its range. The range of a species
can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite number of
ways. We focused our analysis on portions of the species' range that
may meet the Act's definition of an endangered species or a threatened
species. For Virginia sneezeweed, we considered whether the threats or
their effects on the species are greater in any biologically meaningful
portion of the species' range than in other portions such that the
species is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so within
the foreseeable future in that portion.
We examined the following threats and cumulative impacts of these
threats: (1) habitat modifications and associated hydrologic
disruption; (2) invasive species; (3) effects of climate change; and
(4) conservation efforts and regulatory mechanisms. As stated above
under Summary of Biological Status and Threats, when this species was
listed in 1998, habitat modifications and associated hydrological
disruption through residential development, incompatible agricultural
practices, filling and ditching of wetland habitats, and groundwater
withdrawal were identified as the primary threats to Virginia
sneezeweed. However, since listing, the best available scientific
information reflects only a few isolated instances of hydrological
alteration from deepening ponds and drainage ditches. Importantly, at
each impacted site the species persisted despite the disruption.
Accordingly, this anticipated threat has not materialized in any
portion of the range, and we therefore determine that the threat of
habitat modification and hydrologic disruption, even in the absence of
Federal listing, does not rise to a level that threatens the species in
any biologically meaningful portion of its range. Similarly, the
remaining threats to the species have been significantly reduced so
that they do not threaten the species in any biologically meaningful
portion of its range.
Invasive species are not an active threat in Virginia sneezeweed
habitat in Virginia or Indiana, and the best available scientific
information does not indicate the threat from invasive species will
materially increase in the foreseeable future in these portions of the
species' range. In Missouri, encroaching invasive species like spotted
knapweed have been identified in 6 of the 56 EOs on State rights-of-
way. Routine mowing and spraying along roadways that MoDOT carries out
in coordination with MDC is expected to continue to benefit Virginia
sneezeweed, indicating that the threat to the six Missouri EOs will
stay the same or decrease in this portion of the species' range.
The magnitude and spatial/temporal distribution of climate change
impacts on Virginia sneezeweed and its habitat are highly uncertain;
however, they are not expected to put the species at risk of extinction
within the foreseeable future. Resilience is likely to decrease for
some individual populations because of climatic changes that cause
increased flooding and drought. In modeling the most likely future
scenario (Service 2020, pp. 27-29), we assume that EOs with current
viability of fair or better have sufficient resiliency to continue to
exist under future predicted climatic changes while EOs with a current
resiliency ranking of poor are likely to be extirpated if further
stressed by predicted changes in climatic patterns that may result in
increased floods/drought.
Even with the uncertainty associated with predicting climate
effects, the best available projections indicate that conditions will
not become so unfavorable within the species' range that Virginia
sneezeweed populations could not continue to occupy most current
habitats or establish new populations where appropriate conditions
exist. Thus, we consider it a conservative approach to assume EOs that
currently have poor resiliency will not be able to tolerate the
additional stress imposed by climatic changes to their habitats and
will be extirpated. Under this assumption, 5 EOs in Virginia (26
percent of Virginia populations) and 8 EOs in Missouri (14 percent of
Missouri populations) are likely to be extirpated, leaving 14 EOs in
Virginia and 48 EOs in Missouri. The species would still occur across
all four physiographic provinces throughout its range: the Blue Ridge
and Ridge and Valley in Virginia, the Plains in Indiana, and the Ozark
Plateau in Missouri. The single population in Indiana is expected to
remain with good resiliency. The populations in Missouri are expected
to reflect substantial resiliency and redundancy with a high number and
percentage of all populations remaining in this portion of the range
(86 percent of Missouri populations). Although a slightly greater
percentage of populations extant in Virginia are likely to be
extirpated, the species nevertheless would remain resilient in that
portion of its range by retaining 74 percent of current extant Virginia
populations. There are fewer known populations overall within Virginia,
and the 14 remaining populations would reflect some reduction in
redundancy within that portion of the range; however, because the EOs
projected to be extirpated have smaller populations generally, the
remaining populations would retain a greater percent of the species'
abundance in Virginia and the impact to the portion of the range from
reduced redundancy is likely limited.
In further addressing the status question, we also consider that
the populations that may be extirpated within the foreseeable future
due to current poor viability could individually or collectively be
considered to have a different status from the remaining populations.
However, when addressing the significance question, these populations
[[Page 37456]]
do not constitute a significant portion of the species' range. There is
no evidence to indicate that populations projected to potentially be
extirpated within the foreseeable future are any more biologically
meaningful than those expected to remain extant. No populations
(individually or collectively) occur in unique habitats that would
otherwise make those populations biologically meaningful. In addition,
the more populations there are for a given species, the lower the
proportion that each one contributes individually toward viability.
Those populations of Virginia sneezeweed currently in poor condition
are contributing less to resilience at the species level than their
healthier counterparts. Collectively, they do not constitute a
biologically meaningful portion of the species' range because
populations with EO ranks of poor are not concentrated in any given
geographic area, and they make up a small proportion of the overall
range and total abundance.
A number of regulatory mechanisms exist and a number of
conservation efforts that benefit Virginia sneezeweed have occurred
since the species' Federal listing in 1998, and they are expected to
continue for the foreseeable future even in the absence of Federal
listing. The species is State-listed as endangered in Virginia,
Missouri, and Indiana; however, most of the documented EOs are located
on private land, so there is limited protection under State endangered
species laws. Virginia's Virginia Water Protection permit program
provides some additional protection for Virginia sneezeweed habitat in
areas where development projects are required to obtain Clean Water Act
section 404 permits. In Indiana, the single EO has multiple protections
in place. Although the protections afforded the species in these
different portions of its range vary, there is no evidence to suggest
the differences among the conservation measures and regulatory
mechanisms contribute to a different biological status of the species
in any portion of its range.
As described above, while there are populations with lower current
and future viability than others, these populations do not individually
or collectively occur in unique habitats, nor are they concentrated in
any specific area. Cumulatively, they make up a small proportion of the
overall range and total abundance. We therefore found no biologically
meaningful portion of the Virginia sneezeweed's range exists where the
condition of the species differs from its condition elsewhere in its
range such that the status of the species in that portion differs from
its status in any other portion of the species' range.
Therefore, we find that the species is not in danger of extinction
now or likely to become so within the foreseeable future in any
significant portion of its range. This does not conflict with the
courts' holdings in Desert Survivors v. U.S. Department of the
Interior, 321 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1070-74 (N.D. Cal. 2018) and Center for
Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d 946, 959 (D. Ariz.
2017) because, in reaching this conclusion, we did not apply the
aspects of the Final Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase
``Significant Portion of Its Range'' in the Endangered Species Act's
Definitions of ``Endangered Species'' and ``Threatened Species'' (79 FR
37578; July 1, 2014), including the definition of ``significant'' that
those court decisions held to be invalid.
Determination of Status
Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we
determine that Virginia sneezeweed does not meet the definition of an
endangered species or a threatened species in accordance with sections
3(6) and 3(20) of the Act. In accordance with our regulations currently
in effect at 50 CFR 424.11(e)(2), Virginia sneezeweed has recovered to
the point at which it no longer meets the definition of an endangered
species or a threatened species. Therefore, we propose to remove
Virginia sneezeweed from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened
Plants.
Effects of This Rule
This proposal, if made final, would revise 50 CFR 17.12(h) by
removing Virginia sneezeweed from the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Plants. The prohibitions and conservation measures provided
by the Act, particularly through sections 7 and 9, would no longer
apply to this species. Federal agencies would no longer be required to
consult with the Service under section 7 of the Act in the event that
activities they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect Virginia
sneezeweed. There is no critical habitat designated for this species,
so there would be no effect to 50 CFR 17.96.
Post-Delisting Monitoring
Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us, in cooperation with the
States, to implement a monitoring program for not less than 5 years for
all species that have been recovered. Post-delisting monitoring (PDM)
refers to activities undertaken to verify that a species delisted due
to recovery remains secure from the risk of extinction after the
protections of the Act no longer apply. The primary goal of PDM is to
monitor the species to ensure that its status does not deteriorate, and
if a decline is detected, to take measures to halt the decline so that
proposing it as endangered or threatened is not again needed. If at any
time during the monitoring period data indicate that protective status
under the Act should be reinstated, we can initiate listing procedures,
including, if appropriate, emergency listing.
We will coordinate with other Federal agencies, State resource
agencies, interested scientific organizations, and others as
appropriate to develop and implement an effective PDM plan for Virginia
sneezeweed. The PDM plan will build upon current research and effective
management practices that have improved the status of the species since
listing. Ensuring continued implementation of proven management
strategies that have been developed to sustain the species will be a
fundamental goal for the PDM plan. The PDM plan will identify
measurable management thresholds and responses for detecting and
responding to significant changes in Virginia sneezeweed numbers,
distribution, and persistence. If declines are detected equaling or
exceeding these thresholds, the Service, in combination with other PDM
participants, will investigate causes of these declines. The
investigation will be to determine if Virginia sneezeweed warrants
expanded monitoring, additional research, additional habitat
protection, or resumption of Federal protection under the Act.
We appreciate any information on what should be included in post-
delisting monitoring strategies for this species (see Information
Requested, above).
Required Determinations
Clarity of the Proposed Rule
We are required by Executive Orders (EO.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.
[[Page 37457]]
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), EO 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 on a government-to-government
basis. In accordance with Secretary's Order 3206 of June 5, 1997
(American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities,
and the Endangered Species Act), we readily acknowledge our
responsibilities to work directly with Tribes in developing programs
for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that Tribal lands are not
subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to remain
sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available to
Tribes. We will continue to work with Tribal entities during the
development of a final listing determination for Virginia sneezeweed.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the internet at under Docket No. FWS-R5-
ES-2024-0058 and upon request from the Virginia Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
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.
Sec. 17.12 [Amended]
0
2. In Sec. 17.12, amend paragraph (h) by removing the entry for
``Helenium virginicum'' under FLOWERING PLANTS from the List of
Endangered and Threatened Plants.
Justin Shirley,
Principal Deputy Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2025-14809 Filed 8-4-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P