Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing Arenaria cumberlandensis (Cumberland Sandwort) From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants
| Published date | 27 April 2020 |
| Record Number | 2020-08398 |
| Section | Proposed rules |
| Court | Fish And Wildlife Service |
Federal Register, Volume 85 Issue 81 (Monday, April 27, 2020)
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 81 (Monday, April 27, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23302-23315]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08398]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0080; FXES11130900000C2-189-FF09E42000]
RIN 1018-BD82
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing Arenaria
cumberlandensis (Cumberland Sandwort) From the Federal 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 Cumberland sandwort (Arenaria cumberlandensis) from the Federal
List of Endangered and Threatened Plants (List). We also announce the
availability of a draft post-delisting monitoring (PDM) plan for the
Cumberland sandwort. We seek information, data, and comments from the
public on this proposed rule and on the associated draft PDM plan. If
this proposal is finalized, the Cumberland sandwort will be removed
from the List.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before June
26, 2020. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59
p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests for
public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT by June 11, 2020.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this proposed rule and draft PDM
plan by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R4-ES-2019-0080,
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, click on the
Proposed Rule box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by
clicking on ``Comment Now!''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2019-0080; 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 http://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Public Comments, below, for more information).
Document availability: The proposed rule, draft PDM plan, and
supporting documents are available at http://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0080.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lee Andrews, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office,
446 Neal Street, Cookeville, Tennessee, 38501; telephone (931) 528-
6481. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD), may call the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (Act), we are required to conduct a review of all
listed species at least once every 5 years (5-year review) to review
their status and determine whether they should be classified
differently or removed from listed status. In our 2013 5-year review
for the Cumberland sandwort, we recommended reclassifying the species
from endangered to threatened. We initiated another 5-year review for
the species on May 7, 2018 (83 FR 20093), and determined the species
met the criteria for delisting. Therefore, we are publishing this
proposed rule to delist the species.
What this document does. This document proposes to remove the
Cumberland sandwort from the List. It also announces the availability
of a draft PDM plan for the Cumberland sandwort. This determination is
based on a thorough review of the best available scientific and
commercial data, which indicate that the Cumberland sandwort has
recovered and no longer meets the definition of an endangered or a
threatened species under the Act. Our review shows that threats to the
species identified at the time of listing (i.e., timber harvesting,
trampling from recreational uses, and digging for archaeological
artifacts) have been reduced to the point that they no longer threaten
the species, and the Cumberland sandwort has increased in abundance and
range. Our review also indicates that potential effects of projected
climate change are not expected to cause the species to become
endangered in the foreseeable future.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a
species is an endangered or threatened species because of one or more
of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. We must
consider the same factors in removing a species from the List
(delisting) in determining whether a species meets the definition of an
endangered species or a threatened species.
Here, we have determined that the Cumberland sandwort may be
considered for delisting based on recovery. In the rule listing the
Cumberland sandwort (53 FR 23745, June 23, 1988), the primary threats
identified for the species were the destruction and modification of
habitat (Factor A) due to trampling by recreational users of the
rockhouse and bluff habitats where the species occurs, trampling and
soil disturbance from looting of archeological artifacts (i.e., relic
digging), and timber harvesting in or adjacent to occupied sites. While
some habitats occupied by Cumberland sandwort are exposed to these
potential stressors, many are protected from these activities, and
available data support the determination that the species is more
resilient to these threats than was assumed at the time of listing. The
listing rule also discussed limited distribution and small population
size (Factor E), along with inadequate regulatory mechanisms for
preventing habitat destruction (Factor D), as factors contributing to
the species' endangerment. However, our review of the status of and
listing factors for the Cumberland sandwort indicated: (1) An increase
in the number of occurrences of the species within its geographically
restricted range and increased abundance in some occurrences; (2)
resiliency to existing and potential threats; (3) the protection of 66
extant occurrences located on Federal and State conservation lands by
regulations
[[Page 23303]]
or management plans to prevent habitat destruction or removal of
plants; and (4) the implementation of beneficial management practices.
Accordingly, the Cumberland sandwort no longer meets the definition of
an endangered or threatened species under the Act.
Peer review. We are requesting comments from independent
specialists to ensure that we base our determination on scientifically
sound data, assumptions, and analyses.
Information Requested
Public Comments
We want any final rule resulting from this proposal to be as
accurate and effective as possible. Therefore, we invite tribal and
governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, and other
interested parties to submit data, comments, and new information
concerning this proposed rule. The comments that will be most useful
and likely to influence our decision are those that are supported by
data or peer-reviewed studies and those that include citations to, and
analyses of, applicable laws and regulations. Please make your comments
as specific as possible and explain the basis for them. In addition,
please include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to
authenticate any scientific or commercial data you reference or
provide. In particular, we are seeking comments on:
(1) Biological data regarding the Cumberland sandwort, including
the locations of any additional occurrences, survey data, or other
relevant information;
(2) Relevant data concerning any threats (or lack thereof) to the
Cumberland sandwort;
(3) Additional information regarding the range, distribution, life
history, ecology, and habitat of the Cumberland sandwort;
(4) Current or planned activities within the geographic range of
the Cumberland sandwort that may negatively impact or benefit the
Cumberland sandwort; and
(5) The draft PDM plan and the methods and approach detailed in it.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for or
opposition to the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that
determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened
species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available.''
In developing a final determination on this proposed action, we
will take into consideration all comments and any additional
information we receive. Such information may lead to a final rule that
differs from this proposal. All comments and recommendations, including
names and addresses, will become part of the administrative record.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
We will post your entire comment--including your personal
identifying information--on http://www.regulations.gov. If you provide
personal identifying information in your comment, 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.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov.
Public Hearing
Section 4(b)(5)(E) of the Act provides for one or more public
hearings on this proposal, if requested. We must receive requests for a
public hearing, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT by the date shown in DATES. 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 at least 15 days before the
hearing.
Peer Review
In accordance with our policy 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 solicit the expert opinions of at least three
appropriate and independent specialists regarding the science in this
proposed rule and the draft PDM plan. The purpose of such review is to
ensure that we base our decisions on scientifically sound data,
assumptions, and analyses. The peer reviewers will be selected based
upon their expertise in the Cumberland sandwort's biology, habitat, and
physical or biological factors that will inform our determination. We
will send peer reviewers copies of this proposed rule and the draft PDM
plan immediately following publication of this proposed rule in the
Federal Register. We will invite them to comment, during the public
comment period, on the specific assumptions and conclusions regarding
this proposed delisting rule and the associated draft PDM plan. We will
summarize the opinions of these reviewers in the final decision
documents, and we will consider their input and any additional
information we receive as part of our process of making a final
decision on this proposal and draft PDM plan. Such communication may
lead to a final decision that differs from this proposal.
Previous Federal Actions
On June 23, 1988, we listed the Cumberland sandwort as endangered,
due to the threat of habitat destruction or modification resulting from
unintended trampling by recreational users of public lands,
unauthorized digging of Native American artifacts, and timber
harvesting, combined with the low number of occurrences known to exist
at the time of listing and low abundance at most occurrences (53 FR
23745). On June 20, 1996, we released a recovery plan for the
Cumberland sandwort (Service 1996). We completed another 5-year review
for the Cumberland sandwort on December 23, 2013. This 5-year review
summarized all new information accumulated on the species since the
publication of the species' recovery plan and recommended
reclassification to threatened status. We initiated a third 5-year
review for the species on May 7, 2018 (83 FR 20093), and, based on our
review of available data we gathered during preparation of that 5-year
review, and presented herein, we have determined that the recovery
criteria for delisting the species have been met. This rule will,
therefore, equate to our 5-year review. We are providing the 2013 5-
year review as a supplemental document to the proposed rule at https://www.regulations.gov at (Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0080) or https://www.fws.gov/southeast/endangered-species-act/five-year-reviews/.
For additional details on previous Federal actions, including
recovery actions, see discussion under the Recovery section of the
preamble, below.
Species Information
Below, we present a thorough review of the taxonomy, life history,
ecology, and overall status of this plant, referencing data from the
2013 5-year review (Service 2013) where appropriate.
[[Page 23304]]
Taxonomy
Cumberland sandwort (Arenaria cumberlandensis), a member of the
Pink family (Caryophyllaceae), was first recognized and described as a
species in 1979 (Wofford and Kral 1979, entire). This species, along
with several other species of Arenaria, was transferred to the genus
Minuartia while retaining the specific epithet (McNeill 1980, entire).
The species is listed as Minuartia cumberlandensis (Wofford and Kral)
McNeill in A Fifth Checklist of Tennessee Vascular Plants (Chester et
al. 2009, p. 43), the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS)
(2019), and Flora of North America (2019). However, an examination of
the taxonomy of Minuartia using DNA sequences determined that all
species in Minuartia section Uninerviae should be elevated to genus
Mononeuria, along with Geocarpon minimum (Dillenberger and Kadereit
2014, p. 79). The Flora of the Southern and Mid-Atlantic States
accepted this recommendation, assigning the name Mononeuria
cumberlandensis (B.E. Wofford & Kral) Dillenberger & Kadereit to
Cumberland sandwort (Weakley 2015, p. 820). Although there have been
changes to the species' taxonomy since the time of listing, we are
proposing to remove the species from the List of Endangered and
Threatened Plants using the name by which it was initially listed,
Arenaria cumberlandensis (=Mononeuria cumberlandensis).
Population Genetics
In a study of populations in Tennessee, Cumberland sandwort was
found to possess ``fairly high'' levels of genetic variation (Winder
2004, pp. 16-19). Observed levels of heterozygosity were consistent
with expected effects of frequent mating among closely related
individuals, or inbreeding (Winder 2004, p. 19), a common phenomenon in
small populations due to the greater likelihood that most or all
individuals in the population will be closely related (Allendorf and
Luikart 2007, p. 306). Greater genetic similarity was found among
populations within about 4 kilometers (km) (2.5 miles (mi)) of one
another, but a wide range of values were observed at distances of 4 to
25 kilometers (2.5 to 15.5 mi), beyond which populations were
consistently dissimilar (Winder 2004, p. 27). Thus, Cumberland sandwort
populations generally are genetically independent of one another and
have been for a significant period of time, with possible exceptions
where gene flow could occur among densely clustered populations in
close geographic proximity to one another (Winder 2004, p. 28). The
majority of the genetic variation found in the species is retained
within a central cluster of populations located in Pickett County,
Tennessee, and in Laurel Fork (Fentress County) (Winder 2004, p. 37).
The genetic structure of the lone Kentucky population and its relation
to sites sampled in Tennessee are unknown.
Species Description
The following description of Cumberland sandwort is modified from
Wofford and Kral (1979, pp. 257-259) and Kral (1983, pp. 363-364). This
species is a delicate perennial that occurs in small cushionlike
clumps, with upright stems 10 to 15 centimeters (cm) (4 to 6 inches
(in)) tall that are slender and triangular in shape. Leaves are
opposite, 2 to 3 cm (0.8 to 1.2 in) long and 1 to 3 millimeters (mm)
(0.04 to 0.12 in) wide, and are thin and bright green in color, with
glassy margins. Basal leaves are longer and wider than those at the top
of the stems. The flowers are symmetrical, five-parted, and usually
solitary at the end of the stems. The sepals (a part of the flower that
provides protection for the flower in bud and sometimes provides
support for petals when in bloom) are green and inconspicuously three-
veined, and the white petals usually have five green veins. The fruit
is a 3- to 3.5-mm-long (0.12 to 0.14 in) ovoid capsule containing
numerous reddish-brown reticulated (having the form or appearance of a
net) seeds that are 0.5 to 0.7 mm (0.02 to 0.03 inches) long.
The mild conditions of the sheltered habitat where Cumberland
sandwort occurs allow rosettes (circular arrangement of leaves) to
persist through winter and produce abundant, leafy stems in the spring
(Winder 2004, p. 5). The species flowers from May through August, with
some flowers persisting as late as November (Wofford and Kral 1979, p.
259; Winder 2004, p. 5).
Habitat
Cumberland sandwort inhabits fine-grained, sandy soils that
comprise the floors of the interior of ``rockhouses'' (cave-like
recesses produced by differential weathering of sandstone). These
habitats are typically behind the dripline of overlying cliffs, ledges,
and solution pockets of cliffs, where these features are found in
Pennsylvanian sandstones on the Cumberland Plateau in southern Kentucky
and northern Tennessee (Horton 2017, entire). The species occupies
sites that generally share characteristics of high levels of shade,
moisture, and humidity, and relatively constant, cool temperatures
(Wofford and Smith 1980, p. 7), although some smaller occurrences
occupy drier and warmer sites. Few other species are directly
associated with Cumberland sandwort microsites, but the following
species are important indicators that suitable habitat conditions are
present within a given rockhouse or bluff site: Silene rotundifolia
(round-leaved catchfly), Thalictrum clavatum (mountain meadow-rue),
Heuchera parviflora (little-flowered alumroot), Ageratina lucae-braunae
(Lucy Braun's snakeroot), Stenanthium diffusum (diffuse reather-bells)
and the bryophytes Vittaria appalachiana (Appalachian shoestring fern),
Bryoxiphium norvegicum (Norway bryoxiphium moss), and Scopelophila
cataractae (cataract scopelophila moss) (TDEC 2011b, p. 5).
Distribution
When Cumberland sandwort was listed as endangered, the species was
known from 11 occurrences (Wofford and Smith 1980, pp. 9-18), which
were treated as 5 populations (53 FR 23745, June 23, 1988). Of these
occurrences, 1 was in McCreary County, Kentucky, and 10 were
distributed among four Tennessee counties (Fentress, Morgan, Pickett,
and Scott). The species recovery plan (Service 1996, pp. 6-8) reported
that 28 occurrences were extant, including the 11 from the listing
rule, 27 of which were partly or entirely located on publicly owned
conservation lands. One of these 28 occurrences was in McCreary County,
Kentucky, and the remaining 27 were distributed among the 4 Tennessee
counties reported in the listing rule. All occurrences reported in the
listing rule and species recovery plan were located in the South Fork
Cumberland River drainage. Of these 28 occurrences, all but 3 were
extant as of 2017 (TNHID 2018).
As explained below, documentation to verify past or present
existence is lacking for two of the three occurrences we did not
determine to be extant as of 2017, raising questions regarding their
validity. The ``Middle Creek 2'' occurrence reported in the recovery
plan was apparently based on an observation reported by a National Park
Service (NPS) archaeologist, but staff of the TDEC Division of Natural
Areas (TDNA) were unable to confirm the presence of Cumberland sandwort
at the mapped location, which they attribute to a mapping error when
the occurrence was reported. The Morgan County occurrence reported in
the recovery plan, with only the site name ``Sunbright'' given for
location information, also cannot be verified. No
[[Page 23305]]
citation was provided in the recovery plan for this record, and no
record existed for this site in the Tennessee Natural Heritage
Inventory Database (TNHID) (2018), maintained by the Natural Heritage
Program at TDNA. A search of herbarium records for Cumberland sandwort
from Morgan County, Tennessee, produced no specimens from the vicinity
of Sunbright (SERNEC Data Portal 2018). However, a new extant
occurrence record was documented in TNHID for Scott County, based on
the label for a specimen collected in 2002 from a site not previously
known to be occupied by Cumberland sandwort.
The Big Branch occurrence reported in the recovery plan was not
recorded in the TNHID (2018), so no attempts have been made to relocate
this occurrence. Staff from NPS reported the occurrence in comments
provided after reviewing the draft recovery plan (NPS 1995). We
provided information to TDNA on the Big Branch occurrence reported by
NPS, and there is now a historical record for this occurrence in the
TNHID.
In order to evaluate the current status of Cumberland sandwort, we
used data from Natural Heritage Programs in Kentucky (KNHP 2018) and
Tennessee (TNHID 2018) to determine the location and condition of
mapped element occurrences. An element occurrence (E.O.) is a
fundamental unit of information in the NatureServe Natural Heritage
methodology, and is defined as ``an area of land and/or water in which
a species . . . is, or was present'' (NatureServe 2004). There were 64
extant occurrences of Cumberland sandwort reported in the 2013 5-year
review. As of 2018, there were 71 extant occurrences, distributed among
the 5 counties where the species was reported to be extant when the
recovery plan was published: 1 in McCreary County, Kentucky (Kentucky
Natural Heritage Program (KNHP) 2018); 1 in Morgan, 26 in Fentress, 38
in Pickett, and 5 in Scott Counties, Tennessee (TNHID 2018). Of these
occurrences, 12 occur within the Obey River drainage in Tennessee; 11
of these occurrences have been discovered since 2005 on recently
acquired, State-owned conservation lands, and 1 on privately owned
lands in 2016. The remaining 59 occurrences lie within the South Fork
Cumberland River drainage, and all but 1 in Tennessee. Four of the
occurrences in the South Fork Cumberland River drainage are located on
privately owned lands in Tennessee; the remainder are located on state
or federal conservation lands. In addition to these 71 natural
occurrences of Cumberland sandwort, one introduced occurrence has been
established in McCreary County, Kentucky, on the Daniel Boone National
Forest (DBNF) (Pence et al. 2011, entire).
Framework for Monitoring and Evaluating Trends
The TDEC Natural Heritage Program began monitoring Cumberland
sandwort in Tennessee during 2000, estimating abundance in 34 sites as
part of a project to conduct surveys for new locations and update
records for previously known occurrences of the species (TDEC 2000,
entire). The number of occurrences monitored has increased to 55, and
TDEC has categorized sites into three tiers of differing priority, with
highest priority sites to be most frequently monitored (TDEC 2007, p.
5):
Tier 1 sites have a history of site disturbance related to
recreational use or illicit digging of Native American artifacts.
Tier 2 sites face fewer immediate threats in the less
frequently visited sites they occupy.
Tier 3 sites faced no imminent threats at the time of
categorization.
Designating tiers provides for more frequent monitoring of sites
with a greater likelihood of being adversely affected by known threats
that could warrant management intervention. Tier 1 sites are monitored
every 1 to 3 years, Tier 2 sites every 3 to 6 years, and Tier 3 sites
every 6 to 10 years (TDEC 2007, p. 5). In addition to monitoring during
2000 and 2006 (before the tier system was developed), TDEC monitored
Tier 1 sites during 2010 and 2011 (TDEC 2011a, entire), 2014 (TDEC
2014, entire), and 2017 (TDEC unpublished data). Tier 2 sites were
monitored during 2011 through 2012 (TDEC 2012, entire), and Tier 3
sites were monitored during 2016 and 2017 (TDEC unpublished data).
The Service receives monitoring data in the form of written reports
and occurrence-level summary data provided in the TNHID (2018). We used
these summary data to determine which sites in each tier had been
monitored in two or more years, making it possible to assess whether
Cumberland sandwort had declined, remained stable, or increased either
in estimated abundance or area occupied. Based on data provided in the
TNHID, 18 occurrences are in Tier 1, 24 in Tier 2, and 13 in Tier 3 for
which such data were available. Tier 1 occurrences have been monitored
an average of 4.7 times, with time between initial and the most recent
monitoring events averaging 15.8 years. Tier 2 occurrences have been
monitored an average of 2.4 times over an average timespan of 8.4
years. Tier 3 occurrences have been monitored an average of 2.4 times
over an average timespan of 12.1 years. Fifteen occurrences in
Tennessee have been monitored only once or have not, as yet, been
assigned to a monitoring tier.
After reviewing all available monitoring data, TDEC assessed
whether individual occurrences had declined, remained stable, or
increased over the time that they have been monitored (McCoy 2018,
pers. comm.). However, statistical trend analysis of Cumberland
sandwort monitoring data from Tennessee is not feasible for two
reasons: First, estimates of abundance generated in 2000 and in later
monitoring events lack adequate precision for statistically analyzing
change in abundance over time, and second, visual estimates of area
occupied by the species can introduce potential for observer bias
because these areas are not precisely measured. However, the
preparation of hand-drawn maps by TDEC botanists, beginning with the
initial monitoring effort in 2000, allows tracking persistence and
stability of individual patches within occupied sites and detecting
substantial changes in their estimated size. Based on the best
available data, of the 18 Tier 1 occurrences, 2 demonstrate evidence of
decline, 13 are stable, and 3 have increased. Of the 24 Tier 2
occurrences that have been monitored on two or more occassions, 5
demonstrate evidence of decline, 18 are stable, and 1 has increased. Of
the 13 Tier 3 occurrences, 2 have declined, 10 are stable, and 1 has
increased (McCoy 2018, pers. comm.).
Recovery
Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement
recovery plans for the conservation and survival of threatened and
endangered species unless we determine that such a plan will not
promote the conservation of the species. Recovery plans are not
regulatory documents and are instead intended to: (1) Establish goals
for long-term conservation of a listed species; (2) define criteria
that are designed to indicate when the threats facing a species have
been removed or reduced to such an extent that the species may no
longer need the protections of the Act; and (3) provide guidance to our
Federal, State, and other governmental and non-governmental partners on
methods to minimize threats to listed species. There are many paths to
accomplishing recovery of a species, and recovery may be achieved
without all criteria being fully met. For example, one or more criteria
may have been exceeded while other criteria may not
[[Page 23306]]
have been accomplished, yet the Service may judge that, overall, the
threats have been minimized sufficiently, and the species is robust
enough, to reclassify the species from endangered to threatened or
perhaps delist the species. In other cases, recovery opportunities may
have been recognized that were not known at the time the recovery plan
was finalized. These opportunities may be used instead of methods
identified in the recovery plan.
Likewise, information on the species may be learned that was not
known at the time the recovery plan was finalized. The new information
may change the extent that criteria need to be met for recognizing
recovery of the species. In short, recovery of species is a dynamic
process requiring adaptive management that may, or may not, fully
follow the guidance provided in a recovery plan.
The Cumberland Sandwort Recovery Plan (see Previous Federal
Actions, above) included recovery criteria to indicate when threats to
the species have been adequately addressed and prescribed actions that
were thought to be necessary for achieving those criteria. Below we
discuss our analysis of available data and our determination as to
whether recovery criteria for Cumberland sandwort have been achieved.
Recovery Criteria
The objective of the recovery plan is to delist the Cumberland
sandwort. Recovery criteria in the plan state that Arenaria
cumberlandensis (Cumberland sandwort) will be considered for
reclassification from endangered to threatened status when 30
geographically distinct, self-sustaining occurrences are protected in
four counties in Tennessee and Kentucky and have maintained stable or
increasing numbers for 5 consecutive years. The species will be
considered for delisting when 40 geographically distinct, self-
sustaining occurrences are protected and have maintained statistically
stable or increasing numbers for 5 consecutive years. At least 12 of
these occurrences must be in counties other than Pickett County,
Tennessee.
Methods were chosen for monitoring that minimize trampling of
Cumberland sandwort and disturbance of the sandy soil substrate the
species occupies. The tradeoff of using this method to minimize
disturbance is the inability to statistically analyze trends for
individual occurrences or Cumberland sandwort as a species. To address
this limitation, we developed a framework for using available
distribution and monitoring data, aerial photography, and qualitative
assessment of trends for each occurrence to evaluate whether recovery
criteria for Cumberland sandwort have been achieved.
Using this framework we assessed the species' viability based on
the three conservation biology principles of resiliency,
representation, and redundancy (Shaffer and Stein 2000, entire).
Resiliency is the ability to sustain populations in the face of
environmental variation and transient perturbations. To be resilient, a
species must have healthy populations that are able to sustain
themselves through good and bad years. The greater the number of
healthier populations, the more resiliency a species possesses.
Representation is the range of variation or adaptive diversity found in
a species, and is the source of a species' ability to adapt to near-
and long-term changes in the environment. Maintaining adaptive
diversity requires conserving both ecological and genetic diversity,
which enable a species to be more responsive and adaptive to change
and, therefore, more viable. Finally, redundancy protects species
against the unpredictable and highly consequential events for which
adaptation is unlikely, allowing them to withstand catastrophic events.
Redundancy spreads risk and is best achieved by having multiple
populations widely distributed across a species' range.
We characterized the resiliency of 69 of the 71 extant Cumberland
sandwort occurrences using available data on three factors (complete
data were not available for two of the extant occurrences): Occurrence
size expressed as estimated abundance or areal coverage, recorded
observations of threats causing disturbance to plants or the substrates
in which they were rooted, and assessment of general forest conditions
from recorded observations or evaluation of aerial photography, for the
reasons that follow. Smaller populations are at greater risk of (1)
losing genetic variation due to drift (change in the frequency of
alleles in a population due to random, stochastic events), and (2)
inbreeding, which decreases the likelihood that an individual will
receive pollen from a compatible mate and produce viable offspring
(Allendorf and Luikart 2007, pp. 122-123). Small populations also may
face higher risks of extinction due to diminished resilience to
demographic and environmental stochasticity (M[uuml]nzbergov[aacute]
2006, p. 143). Demographic stochasticity is the variation in vital
rates (i.e., probabilities of survival and reproduction) among
individuals of a given age or life-cycle stage, at a given point in
time, while environmental stochasticity is variation in vital rates
over time, affecting all individuals of a given age or stage similarly
(Lande 1988, p. 1457). Undisturbed substrates contribute to Cumberland
sandwort resiliency by providing suitable sites for germination,
growth, and reproduction to occur. Also, the presence of contiguous
forest vegetation in the vicinity of Cumberland sandwort occurrences
helps to maintain suitable hydrology and microclimate, potentially
buffering severity of stress resulting from environmental
perturbations, such as drought. We evaluated representation by
considering the distribution of resilient occurrences among the
counties and watersheds from which the species is known. Finally, we
evaluated redundancy based on the overall number of resilient
occurrences distributed throughout its range.
In evaluating resiliency, we used estimates of abundance, where
available, combined with estimates of areal coverage to provide a basis
for categorizing occurrences into groups of low, medium, or high
abundance. Occurrences with fewer than 100 individuals (Heschel and
Page 1995, pp. 128-131; M[uuml]nzbergov[aacute] 2006, p. 148) or with
areal coverage less than 1 m\2\ were ranked ``low''; occurrences with
100-1,000 individuals or with areal coverage ranging from 1 to 5 m\2\
were ranked ``medium''; and occurrences with more than 1,000
individuals or areal coverage greater than 5 m\2\ were ranked ``high''.
We ranked substrate conditions at each occurrence based on recorded
observations of threats (TDEC 2011b, pp. 37-44). Substrate conditions
were ranked ``high'' for sites with no record of disturbance;
``medium'' for sites with moderate risk of exposure to the threat based
on limited historical evidence of digging for archeological artifacts
(i.e., relic digging) or trampling by humans or wildlife in limited
areas within available habitat; and ``low'' for sites with high risk of
exposure as indicated by recent evidence of relic digging or trampling
throughout available habitat. We used aerial imagery available through
Google Earth ProTM to determine whether forests in the
general vicinity of Cumberland sandwort occurrences exhibited signs of
timber harvest, as indicated by substantially reduced tree densities,
presence of logging equipment trails, or conversion to non-native,
evergreen forest types. Forest conditions were ranked ``high'' in
locations where late seral forest was present upslope and downslope of
occupied sites and in adjacent areas;
[[Page 23307]]
``medium'' in locations where risk of exposure to the threat was
moderate based on evidence of logging having occurred within the prior
15 years in the vicinity of, but not immediately upslope, downslope, or
adjacent to, occurrences; and ``low'' in sites where risk of exposure
was high based on evidence of logging within the prior 15 years in the
forest immediately surrounding the occupied habitat.
Of the 69 occurrences that we could evaluate for all 3 resiliency
factors, 12 were ranked as low in abundance, 27 ranked medium, and 30
occurrences ranked high. Substrate conditions ranked low at 12, medium
at 25, and high at 32 occurrences. We were able to evaluate forest
conditions at all 71 extant occurrences, with the following results: 8
occurrences ranked low, 3 ranked medium, and 60 ranked high.
Using the ranks for the 3 resiliency factors (abundance, substrate
condition, and forest condition), we calculated an overall resiliency
index for 68 of the 70 Tennessee occurrences (table 1) and the lone
Kentucky occurrence. We assigned numerical scores of one for factor
ranks of ``low,'' two for ``medium'' ranks, and three for ``high''
ranks. Using these scores, we calculated a weighted average, wherein
factor ranks for abundance were given twice the weight of factor ranks
for substrate and forest condition, due to the importance of population
size in maintaining genetic variation and determining resilience to
demographic and environmental stochasticity (Sgr[ograve] et al. 2011,
p. 329). The resulting resiliency index for an occurrence ranges from
one to three and is categorized as follows:
Low rank for scores of 1.5 or less;
Low-medium rank for scores greater than 1.5 and less than
2.0;
Medium rank for scores ranging from 2.0 to 2.5;
Medium-high rank for scores greater than 2.5 and less than
3.0;
High rank for scores of 3.0.
Available data for the Kentucky occurrence indicate that the
species abundance rank is medium at that location and that the
occurrence is not exposed to threats from trampling or relic digging.
This location, in BSF, is protected from timber harvesting, and
available data indicate that surrounding forests are undisturbed. These
factors produced an overall resiliency rank of medium for this
occurrence.
In Tennessee, 56 occurrences had overall resiliency ranks of medium
or higher. Table 1 shows the resiliency ranks for all Tennessee
occurrences. All of the stable and increasing trends in the medium,
medium-high, and high resiliency ranks represent counts of occurrences
considered self-sustaining, as required by recovery criteria.
Table 1--Resiliency Index Ranks for Cumberland Sandwort Occurrences in Tennessee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitoring tier Trend Low Low- medium Medium Medium- high High
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One....................................... Decline..................... 2 .............. .............. .............. ..............
Stable...................... 1 1 7 4 ..............
Increase.................... .............. .............. .............. 2 1
Two....................................... Decline..................... 3 .............. 2 .............. ..............
Stable...................... 2 .............. 10 3 2
Increase.................... .............. .............. .............. 1 ..............
Three..................................... Decline..................... 1 .............. 1 .............. ..............
Stable...................... .............. .............. 4 3 3
Increase.................... .............. .............. 1 .............. ..............
Other..................................... n/a......................... 1 1 7 .............. 5
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................. ............................ 10 2 32 13 11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the purpose of evaluating Cumberland sandwort's status with
respect to recovery criteria, we define self-sustaining to include
those populations that had an overall resiliency index rank of medium
or higher and that TDEC determined were stable or increasing (Table 1)
based on available monitoring data, as described above in Species
Information. For the Kentucky occurrence, available data indicate that
the occurrence is stable. We consider 66 occurrences on Federal or
State conservation lands (Table 2), as well as 2 occurrences located on
private lands where land use is restricted by conservation easements,
to be protected. Using these definitions, 42 protected occurrences
(including the 1 in Kentucky) are self-sustaining (table 1 presents
data for Tennessee). These occurrences have been known to exist for an
average of 21 years, with a range of 7 to 44 years spanning the first
and most recent observations recorded for the species in these sites.
This exceeds one criterion for removing Cumberland sandwort from the
List--i.e., that there be at least 40 geographically distinct,
protected, and self-sustaining occurrences that have been stable or
increasing for at least 5 years.
Table 2--Land Ownership for 66 Cumberland Sandwort Occurrences on
Federal and State Conservation Lands
[Note: Number of occurrences in table sums to 70, but 4 occurrences
occupy habitats spanning adjacent lands owned by TDF and TSP and are
counted only once for total]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Agency Land unit occurrences
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Park Service......... Big South Fork 27.
National Scenic River
and Recreation Area
(BSF).
Tennessee Division of Forestry Pickett State Forest 29 (4 partially
(TDF). (PSF). on TSP lands).
Tennessee Division of Natural Pogue Creek Canyon 7.
Areas. State Natural Area
(PCNA).
Tennessee State Parks (TSP)... Pickett CCC Memorial 7 (4 partially
State Park (PSP). on TDF lands).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 23308]]
The recovery criteria in the recovery plan also require that at
least 12 of the protected, self-sustaining occurrences be located
outside of Pickett County, Tennessee, presumably for the purpose of
increasing representation and redundancy within the species' geographic
range. Of the 42 occurrences meeting the criterion of being protected
and self-sustaining, 28 are located in Pickett County, Tennessee, 13
are located elsewhere in Tennessee (9 in Fentress County, 4 in Scott
County), and 1 is located in McCreary County, Kentucky. Thus, this
delisting criterion is also exceeded.
Another measure of representation for the species is its
distribution among major watersheds in which it is found. The recovery
plan reported in 1996 that the species was known only from the South
Fork Cumberland watershed, but it is now also known from 12 occurrences
in the Obey River watershed in Tennessee. Of the 42 occurrences meeting
the recovery criterion that there be at least 40 geographically
distinct, protected, and self-sustaining occurrences, 2 are located in
the Obey River watershed. The low number of occurrences in this
watershed meeting this criterion is primarily due to the recent
discovery of any occurrences in this watershed and consequent lack of
repeat observations. In addition to the two occurrences in the Obey
River watershed meeting the recovery criterion above, nine occurrences
on protected lands have resiliency indices of medium or higher, and we
expect that they will be self-sustaining and contribute to the species
representation of resilient occurrences into the foreseeable future.
Our assessment of the viability of Cumberland sandwort supports the
determination that the recovery criteria for delisting the species have
been satisfied. The discussion above demonstrates that there are more
than 40 protected and self-sustaining occurrences of the species,
distributed among 4 counties in Tennessee and 1 in Kentucky.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part
424) set forth the procedures for listing species, reclassifying
species, or removing species from listed status. We may determine that
a species is an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of
the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act: (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.
A recovered species is one that no longer meets the Act's
definition of endangered or threatened. Determining whether the status
of a species has improved to the point that it can be delisted or
downlisted requires consideration of the same five factors identified
above for listing a species. When Cumberland sandwort was listed as
endangered in 1988, the identified threats (factors) influencing its
status were the modification and loss of habitat and curtailment of
range (Factor A), the inadequacy of State or Federal mechanisms to
protect its habitat at that time (Factor D), and its limited
distribution and low abundance in some populations (Factor E). The
following analysis evaluates these previously identified threats, any
other threats currently facing the species, as well as any other
threats that are reasonably likely to affect the species in the
foreseeable future following the delisting and the removal of the Act's
protections.
The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future.'' However,
our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) (84 FR 45020) codify
that the term ``foreseeable future'' extends only so far into the
future as the Service can reasonably determine that the conditions
potentially posing a danger of extinction in the foreseeable future are
probable. The Service 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. The
Service need not identify the foreseeable future in terms of a specific
period of time, but may instead explain the extent to which we can
reasonably determine that both the future threats and the species'
responses to those threats are probable. To establish the foreseeable
future for the purpose of determining whether Cumberland sandwort meets
the definition of a threatened or endangered species, we evaluated
trends from historical data on distribution and abundance, ongoing
conservation efforts, factors currently affecting the species, and
predictions of future climate change. Structured monitoring of
Cumberland sandwort populations began in 2000, but records of initial
observations for occurrences range from 1973 to 2017, with an average
of 18 years between the earliest and most recent recorded observations
for a given occurrence. The period of observation is 30 or more years
for 16 occurrences, which vary in population size and threat exposure.
These historical data provide insight into Cumberland sandwort's
exposure and response to potential threats under varying conditions.
When combined with our knowledge of factors affecting the species,
available data allow us to reasonably predict future conditions, albeit
with diminishing precision over time. Given our understanding of the
best available data, for the purposes of this rule we consider the
foreseeable future for Cumberland sandwort to be approximately 30
years.
In assessing threats to Cumberland sandwort, we consider the
exposure of individual occurrences to suspected stressors, available
data on the species response to those stressors where they have been
observed, and efforts undertaken to reduce exposure into the future. As
noted above in Recovery Criteria, available data indicate that the lone
Kentucky occurrence is not exposed to threats that would result in
modification or destruction of habitat.
Habitat Loss and Curtailment of Range
In the rule listing the Cumberland sandwort (53 FR 23745, June 23,
1988), the primary threats identified for the species were the
destruction and modification of habitat due to trampling by
recreational users of the rockhouse and bluff habitats where the
species occurs, trampling and soil disturbance from looting of
archeological artifacts (i.e., relic digging), and timber harvesting in
or adjacent to occupied sites.
In Tennessee, the potential for trampling or soil disturbance from
recreational use, wildlife, or relic digging has been noted at 38 sites
where Cumberland sandwort occurs, with varying degrees of exposure and
actual risk for adversely affecting the species (TDEC 2011b, pp. 40-44,
TNHID 2018). In one of these sites (EO 78), signs of trampling and a
fire pit were observed on the rockhouse floor in 2007 (TNHID 2018), but
Cumberland sandwort plants are located on ledges and solution pockets
on the bluff where they are not exposed to trampling. Additionally, no
fire pit was observed during a site visit by the Service in February
2019. Of the other 37 sites where risk of trampling or soil disturbance
has been recorded during monitoring or other site visits, available
data indicate that Cumberland sandwort faces high risk of exposure in
12 of them and moderate risk in the other 25. Cumberland sandwort
[[Page 23309]]
abundance has declined at 6 of the 12 sites with high exposure risk,
while 5 have remained stable. Trend data are not available for the
twelfth site, which was discovered in 2014. Declines in abundance have
been observed at only three of the sites with moderate risk of
exposure, while increases have been observed at three others. The
remaining 19 sites with moderate risk of exposure to the threat of
trampling or soil disturbance have remained stable. Thus, while the
potential threat of trampling or soil disturbance has been noted at
many sites, Cumberland sandwort faces a high risk of actual exposure in
less than 20 percent of occurrences. Under conditions of moderate
exposure risk, the species has demonstrated low vulnerability to being
adversely affected, having maintained stable populations in most
instances.
Protective features, including fences, boardwalks, barricades,
rerouted trails, and/or informational signs have been installed at 8 of
the 37 occurrences discussed above, protecting specific habitats
occupied by Cumberland sandwort. (Service 2013, pp. 13-14, TDEC 2016,
p. 3). The seven occurrences at PCNA are protected from recreational
activities by the State's efforts to survey proposed alignments for new
trails and route them away from sites with Cumberland sandwort.
Measures such as these reduce or preclude the species' exposure to the
threat of trampling from recreationists using trails on public lands
where the species occurs.
Timber harvest occurs at PSF, but does not occur at BSF, PSP, or
PCNA, limiting the potential magnitude of this activity, assumed to be
a threat to Cumberland sandwort, to less than half of the sites on
conservation lands. During the course of evaluating forest conditions
in the vicinity of Cumberland sandwort occurrences, we observed that
timber harvests had been conducted in the general vicinity of 10
occurrences at PSF, during the period between approximately 2008 and
2017. Timber harvests occurred upslope or downslope of seven of these
occurrences, creating a high risk for exposure to potential effects of
this threat, and in the general vicinity of three occurrences, where
exposure risk was moderate. Sometime prior to 1999, the forest was
converted to pasture on the plateau top above an eleventh occurrence,
located on privately owned lands. Based on these data, timber harvests
or forest conversion to pasture have taken place near approximately 15
percent of Cumberland sandwort sites. Data were available to evaluate
trends for 10 of these 11 occurrences--3 have declined and 7 have
remained stable. Monitoring data collected by TDEC at three of these
occurrences since 2016 revealed no adverse effects from logging
activities. These data support the conclusion that timber harvests in
the vicinity of Cumberland sandwort occurrences that do not directly
impact the species or its habitat may pose little threat in terms of
indirect effects. This conclusion is also supported by observations
from visits we conducted in February 2019 to four occurrences with
nearby timber harvests, in which no adverse effects from off-site
timber removal were detectable. Based on these observations, we
conclude that our estimates of forest condition ranks, discussed above
in Recovery Criteria, likely underestimate the resiliency of
occurrences in those instances where forest condition ranks were
reduced due to evidence of nearby logging activities.
While some Cumberland sandwort occurrences are exposed to potential
habitat-related stressors that might, in certain situations, adversely
affect the species, available monitoring data indicate that the species
is less vulnerable to these threats than was assumed at the time of
listing. In the event Cumberland sandwort is removed from the List, our
draft post-delisting monitoring plan (see Post-delisting Monitoring,
below) identifies 50 occurrences to be monitored over a period of at
least 5 years following delisting, including 27 occurrences where risks
of exposure to soil disturbance or trampling, effects of nearby timber
harvests, or the two combined have been moderate to high. Continuing to
monitor sites where Cumberland sandwort is exposed to potential threats
that were previously assumed to place the species at risk of extinction
will provide an opportunity to work with land managers to avoid or
minimize adverse effects should the threats increase in severity or
extent.
In our analysis of Cumberland sandwort's resiliency, discussed
above in Recovery Criteria, we incorporated available data regarding
threats that could potentially modify habitat or curtail the species'
range. We determined that 42 occurrences currently meet the criterion
of being protected and self-sustaining. These occurrences have been
known to exist for an average of 21 years, with a range of 7 to 44
years spanning the first and most recent observations recorded for the
species in these sites. In addition to these 42 occurrences, 9
occurrences are protected in the Obey River watershed and 2 in the
South Fork Cumberland watershed in Tennessee for which sufficient
monitoring data for evaluating trends in abundance or threats is
lacking. However, seven of these occurrences in the Obey River drainage
have no evidence of substrate or forest disturbance, and are located in
PCNA, where TDEC (no date, pp. 10-11) surveys potential trail routes to
prevent new trail construction that would expose occurrences to threats
from recreational uses. No other potential threats to the habitats at
PCNA have been documented. The two occurrences in the South Fork
Cumberland drainage are located in BSF and are not affected by any
known threats because they are remotely located from trail access and
protected from timber harvest.
Thus, available data indicate that the threat of habitat
modification or curtailment of the species' range has been addressed.
Limited Distribution and Small Population Sizes
The listing rule for Cumberland sandwort identified the species'
restricted distribution, limited to a small portion of the Cumberland
Plateau in northern Tennessee and southern Kentucky, and the small size
of many populations, as factors increasing the risks of population loss
and potential extinction of the species. The species is still
restricted to a small portion of the Cumberland Plateau, but the number
of known occurrences has increased from 11 at the time of listing
(Wofford and Smith 1980, pp. 9-18, 53 FR 23745) to 71 currently (TNHID
2018). Three projects have been funded to support searches for new
Cumberland sandwort occurrences (KSNPC 1991, entire; TDEC 2000, entire;
TDEC 2008, entire). The single search effort that occurred in Kentucky,
only in McCreary County, did not expand the known range of Cumberland
sandwort, but confirmed the known occurrence located in Big Spring
Hollow and documented that thousands of plants were present at two
sites mapped at the occurrence (KSNPC 1991, entire). Searches conducted
in Tennessee in 2000 (TDEC 2000, entire) and 2006-2007 (TDEC 2008,
entire) produced records for 30 new occurrences on conservation lands
in Fentress, Pickett, and Scott counties, Tennessee. In addition to
these three Cumberland sandwort survey projects, surveys at PCNA for
prospective trail routes have produced records for six additional
occurrences on conservation lands in Fentress County (TNHID 2018).
These survey efforts, funded in part by the Service via Section 6
grants to state agencies for endangered species recovery, contributed
greatly to increasing the species' distribution to the 71 extant
occurrences known today.
[[Page 23310]]
Fourteen protected and self-sustaining occurrences are located
outside of Pickett County, satisfying the recovery criterion concerning
geographic distribution. And 12 of the 71 occurrences are located in
the Obey River watershed in Tennessee, increasing the species'
distribution beyond the South Fork Cumberland watershed, to which the
species was thought to be restricted at the time of listing.
The listing rule discussed small population size as a threat to
many occurrences, but did not include information on population sizes
at the time or specify the number of individuals or the size of habitat
area occupied that would be necessary to buffer against extinction
risk. As discussed above in Recovery Criteria, we used available data
to evaluate the species' abundance at known occurrences. We consider
populations consisting of fewer than 100 individuals or occupying less
than 1 m\2\ of habitat to be at heightened risk of (1) losing genetic
variation due to drift (change in the frequency of alleles in a
population due to random, stochastic events), and (2) inbreeding, which
decreases the likelihood that an individual will receive pollen from a
compatible mate and produce viable offspring (Allendorf and Luikart
2007, pp. 122-123). However, we note that the risk of inbreeding
depression due to unavailability of incompatible mates might be low for
Cumberland sandwort, as self-compatibility apparently evolved twice in
geographically distant populations of the closely related congener
Mononeuria (=Arenaria) glabra at the edges of the species' range (Wyatt
1984, p. 815). Based on available data, 12 populations consist of fewer
than 100 individuals or occupy less than 1 m\2\ of habitat. Six of
these 12 have been known to persist as small populations for lengths of
time ranging from 24 to 41 years, indicating that even small poulations
are likely to persist for the foreseeable future (TNHID 2018). The
remaining six were discovered in 2000 or later. In contrast, 27
occurrences contain 100-1,000 individuals or occupy 1 to 5 m\2\ of
habitat, and 30 occurrences contain more than 1,000 individuals or
occupy greater than 5 m\2\ of habitat. Estimates of abundance available
for 24 of the largest occurrences indicate that they collectively hold
at least 67,000 Cumberland sandwort individuals. These data demonstrate
that small population size is not a threat to the species, affecting
less than 20 percent of the 71 extant Cumberland sandwort occurrences.
Techniques for micropropagating, cryopreserving, and outplanting
Cumberland sandwort have been developed and successfully applied to
establish an introduced population at DBNF (Pence et al. 2011, entire),
which is not counted among the 71 extant occurrences discussed above.
This introduced population has grown from an initial outplanting of 63
individuals to 255 individuals, representing multiple life stages, as
of 2017 (Taylor 2018, pers. comm.). Eight years after initial
outplanting, the genetic variation in this population, which was
established in 2005 from seven genetic lines, was approaching levels of
genetic diversity comparable to the source population (Philpott et al.
2014, entire). The Missouri Botanical Garden (MBG) has seeds in storage
from BSF and PSP that were collected in 1991, 1994, 2005, and 2014
(Dell 2018, pers. comm.). Collections were made at multiple points in
time to maintain seed viability in storage. While a cultivated source
of plants is not currently maintained ex situ, the need for doing so is
mitigated by the development of methods to micropropagate the species
from cuttings and by availability of seeds in ex situ collections,
providing two potential methods for propagating the species should it
become necessary to do so.
Available data support the determination that Cumberland sandwort
is not likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future due to
limited distribution or small population sizes.
Effects of Climate Change
Our analyses under the Act include consideration of ongoing and
projected changes in climate. The terms ``climate'' and ``climate
change'' are defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC). The term ``climate change'' thus refers to a change in the mean
or variability of one or more measures of climate (e.g., temperature or
precipitation) that persists for an extended period, typically decades
or longer, whether the change is due to natural variability, human
activity, or both (IPCC 2014, pp. 119-120). A recent compilation of
climate change and its effects is available from reports of the IPCC
(IPCC 2014, entire).
The IPCC concluded that evidence of warming of the climate system
is unequivocal (IPCC 2014, pp. 2, 40). Numerous long-term climate
changes have been observed including changes in arctic temperatures and
ice, widespread changes in precipitation amounts, changes in ocean
salinity, and aspects of extreme weather including heavy precipitation
and heat waves (IPCC 2014, pp. 40-44). Since 1970, the average annual
temperature across the Southeast has increased by about 2 degrees
Fahrenheit ([deg]F), with the greatest increases occurring during
winter months. The geographic extent of areas in the Southeast region
affected by moderate to severe spring and summer drought has increased
over the past three decades by 12 and 14 percent, respectively (Karl et
al. 2009, p. 111). These trends are expected to increase. Rates of
warming are predicted to more than double in comparison to what the
Southeast has experienced since 1975, with the greatest increases
projected for summer months. Depending on the emissions scenario used
for modeling change (IPCC 2000, entire), average temperatures are
expected to increase by 4.5 [deg]F (scenario B1) to 9 [deg]F (scenario
A2) by the 2080s (Karl et al. 2009, p. 111). While there is
considerable variability in rainfall predictions throughout the region,
increases in evaporation of moisture from soils and loss of water by
plants in response to warmer temperatures are expected to contribute to
increased frequency, intensity, and duration of drought events (Karl et
al. 2009, p. 112).
We used the National Climate Change Viewer (NCCV), a climate-
visualization tool developed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), to
generate future climate projections across the range of Cumberland
sandwort. The NCCV is a web-based tool for visualizing projected
changes in climate and water balance at watershed, State, and county
scales (USGS 2017). This tool uses air temperature and precipitation
data from 30 downscaled climate models for two Representative
Concentration Pathway (RCP) scenarios, RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5, as input to
a simple water-balance model to simulate changes in the surface water
balance over historical and future time periods, providing insight into
potential for climate-driven changes in water resources. To evaluate
the maximum effects of climate change in the future, we used
projections from RCP 8.5, which is the most aggressive emissions
scenario wherein greenhouse gases (GHGs) rise unchecked through the end
of the century, to characterize projected future changes in climate and
water resources, averaged across the five counties encompassing the
range of Cumberland sandwort. The projections estimate change in mean
annual values, comparing the period 1981 through 2010 with 2050 through
2074, for maximum and minimum temperature,
[[Page 23311]]
monthly precipitation and runoff, snowfall, soil water storage, and
evaporative deficit.
Within the range of Cumberland sandwort, the NCCV projects that,
under the more extreme RCP 8.5 scenario, maximum temperature will
increase by 3.2 degrees Celsius ([deg]C) (5.7 degrees [deg]F), minimum
temperature will increase by 3.1 [deg]C (5.6 [deg]F), precipitation
will increase by 5.36 mm (0.2 in) per month, soil water storage will
decrease by 12.2 mm (0.5 in) annually, and evaporative deficit will
increase by 4.6 mm (0.2 in) per month. Projected changes in snowfall
are negligible. These estimates indicate that, despite projected
minimal increases in annual precipitation, anticipated increases in
maximum and minimum temperatures will offset those gains, leading to a
net loss in projected runoff and soil water storage. The most notable
change with respect to water balance between the two time periods is
that soil storage projections are projected to be significantly reduced
during the months of June through November for the period 2050 through
2074. Based on these projections, Cumberland sandwort will on average
be exposed to increased temperatures across its range which, despite
limited increases in precipitation, are expected to decrease soil water
available during the growing season.
Assessments of vulnerability of federally listed plants in
Tennessee to projected climate change have been conducted by two
different groups (Glick et al. 2015, entire; Kwit 2018, pers. comm.)
using version 2.1 of NatureServe's Climate Change Vulnerability Index
(CCVI) (Young et al. 2015, entire). The CCVI is an assessment tool that
combines results of downscaled climate predictions, characterizing
direct exposure to projected climate change, with readily available
information about a species' natural history, distribution, and
landscape circumstances, which together influence sensitivity to
change, to predict whether it will likely suffer a range contraction
and/or population reductions due to the effects of climate change. For
these assessments using the CCVI, climate change projections were based
on ensemble climate predictions, representing a median of 16 major
global circulation models, using a ``middle of the road'' scenario
(i.e., emission scenario A1B of the IPCC (IPCC 2000, entire)) for GHG
emissions (Young et al. 2015, p. 14), in contrast to the more extreme
scenario that we used in the NCCV to project climate and water balance
changes reported above. From these two assessments, Cumberland sandwort
was ranked as either ``presumed stable'' (Glick et al. 2015, p. 40) or
``moderately vulnerable'' (Kwit 2018, pers. comm.), the latter
indicating the species' abundance and/or range extent within the
geographical area assessed would likely decrease by 2050 (Young et al.
2015, p. 45).
The disparate results between these two assessments conducted using
the same tool illustrate that there is some subjectivity involved in
evaluating aspects of a species' biology and ecology as they relate to
CCVI sensitivity factors used to model potential vulnerability to
projected climate change. In the case of Cumberland sandwort, differing
judgements of the species' physiological dependence on specific thermal
and hydrological niches, restriction to uncommon geological features,
and potential for phenological response to changing climate resulted in
different outcomes with respect to predicted vulnerability to climate
change. In the assessment that ranked Cumberland sandwort as moderately
vulnerable, each of these factors were individually ranked as being
more likely to increase the species' overall vulnerability than in the
contrasting assessment that produced a rank of presumed stable.
Despite having produced different vulnerability ranks, both
assessments ranked Cumberland sandwort among the least vulnerable to
projected climate change of the Federally listed plant species
evaluated in Tennessee (Glick et al. 2015, p. 40; Kwit 2018, pers.
comm.). While the rank of moderately vulnerable indicates that
Cumberland sandwort would likely decrease in abundance and/or range
extent by 2050, neither assessment using the CCVI predicted that the
species would become extinct within that timeframe or decrease
significantly in abundance and/or range extent. Factors contributing to
potential resilience of the species to projected climate change include
the topographic complexity of the landscape it occupies, general lack
of fragmentation among habitats where the species occurs, high
abundance at some occurrences, and the fact that most occurrences are
located on conservation lands where known threats can be monitored and
managed.
Evidence of Cumberland sandwort's potential resilience to the
threat of increased drought frequency and intensity is provided by
examining available monitoring data in relation to drought records
available from 2000 through present. We acquired data from the U.S.
Drought Monitor (USDM) summarizing the number of weeks that the
geographic area where Cumberland sandwort occurs experienced
``extreme'' or ``exceptional'' droughts for periods of more than 2
consecutive weeks (USDM 2019). The USDM is jointly produced by the
National Drought Mitigation Center at the University of Nebraska-
Lincoln, the United States Department of Agriculture, and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Since 2000, the four Tennessee
counties, where all but one Cumberland sandwort occurrence are located,
have experienced periods of such drought during 2007, 2008, and 2016.
Prolonged drought conditions began during the last half of June 2007
and extended into late winter or spring of 2008, depending on the
county. ``Extreme'' or ``exceptional'' drought conditions in these
counties started again sometime between August and October 2008, ending
in early December. During June 2007 through the end of 2008, these
counties experienced between 26 and 53 cumulative weeks of ``extreme''
or ``exceptional'' drought conditions for periods that lasted 2 or more
consecutive weeks. These counties did not experience such drought
conditions again until a 3-week period during November 2016.
To determine whether any population declines recorded through
monitoring corresponded with documented periods of local drought, we
examined available data (TNHID 2018) for all sites where monitoring has
encompassed the two drought periods discussed above. There were 20
occurrences with data spanning this time range, only one (Tennessee EO
7) of which was judged to have declined. More than 450 plants were
estimated to have been present at this site in November 2007, and 351
plants were counted at the site in September 2017. Cumberland sandwort
was estimated to have occupied approximately 4 m\2\ of habitat in both
years. This site's medium rank for abundance did not change over this
time period. The other 19 sites remained stable over the time period
encompassing the drought conditions discussed above, with the exception
of three that increased. Available monitoring data, when considered in
conjunction with data documenting droughts of extreme or exceptional
severity within the range of Cumberland sandwort, indicate that the
species is resilient to this climate phenomenon. Small populations are
likely the most vulnerable to reductions or loss due to climate change.
Monitoring data spanning the time period of the droughts discussed
above were available for 3 occurrences with fewer than 100 individuals
or that were less than 1 m\2\ in size, all of which remained stable.
Thus, we conclude that climate change
[[Page 23312]]
will not threaten the viability of the species into the foreseeable
future.
Cumulative Effects
The stressors discussed in the analysis above could work in concert
with each other and result in a cumulative adverse effect to Cumberland
sandwort, e.g., one stressor may make the species more vulnerable to
other threats. For example, stressors discussed under Factor A that
individually do not rise to the level of a threat could together result
in habitat degradation or loss. In instances where multiple habitat
stressors act in concert with small population sizes, occurrences might
lack resilience needed for population stability or growth. However, the
potential stressors we identified either have not occurred to the
extent originally anticipated at the time of listing, or appear to be
either well-tolerated by the species or adequately managed as described
in this proposal to delist the species. Our analysis has identified no
range-wide threats or stressors with significant effects to all
occurrences. We characterized the presence and relative severity of
threats resulting from disturbances of substrates or altered forest
conditions. Only 7 of the 71 extant occurrences were found to be
potentially exposed to both substrate disturbance and altered forest
condition. For reasons discussed below in Inadequacy of Regulatory
Mechanisms, we do not anticipate stressors to increase on conservation
lands where nearly all of the occurrences are located. Furthermore, the
increases documented in the number and size of many occurrences since
the species was listed do not indicate that cumulative effects of
various activities and stressors are affecting the viability of the
species at this time or into the future.
Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The Commonwealth of Kentucky and the State of Tennessee both list
Cumberland sandwort as an endangered species. Conservation efforts are
directed towards such species by KSNPC and TDEC, using funding and
authorities provided through cooperative agreements with the Service
under section 6 of the Act for endangered species recovery. Should
Cumberland sandwort be delisted, these agencies would no longer receive
such funding specifically for Cumberland sandwort conservation efforts,
but could allocate a portion of overall funds they receive for post-
delisting monitoring of the species.
The Kentucky Rare Plants Recognition Act, Kentucky Revised Statutes
(KRS), chapter 146, section 600-619, directs the KSNPC to identify
plants native to Kentucky that are in danger of extirpation within
Kentucky and report every 4 years to the Governor and General Assembly
on the conditions and needs of these endangered or threatened plants.
The list of endangered or threatened plants in Kentucky is found in the
Kentucky Administrative Regulations, title 400, chapter 3:040. The
statute also recognizes the need to develop and maintain information
regarding distribution, population, habitat needs, limiting factors,
other biological data, and requirements for the survival of plants
native to Kentucky. However, this statute does not include any
regulatory prohibitions of activities or direct protections for any
species included in the list. It is expressly stated in KRS 146.615
that this list of endangered or threatened plants shall not obstruct or
hinder any development or use of public or private land. Furthermore,
the intent of this statute is not to ameliorate the threats identified
for the species, but to provide information on the species.
The Tennessee Rare Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1985
(T.C.A. 11-26-201) authorizes the TDEC to, among other things, conduct
investigations on species of rare plants throughout the State of
Tennessee; maintain a listing of species of plants determined to be
endangered, threatened, or of special concern within the State; and
regulate the sale or export of endangered species via a licensing
system. This statute forbids persons from knowingly uprooting, digging,
taking, removing, damaging, destroying, possessing, or otherwise
disturbing for any purpose, any endangered species from private or
public lands without the written permission of the landowner, lessee,
or other person entitled to possession and prescribes penalties for
violations. The TDEC may use the list of threatened and special concern
species when commenting on proposed public works projects in Tennessee,
and the department shall encourage voluntary efforts to prevent the
plants on this list from becoming endangered species. It may not,
however, be used to interfere with, delay, or impede any public works
project.
Cumberland sandwort listing under these State laws may continue
following Federal delisting, although Federal delisting may prompt
changes in status in Kentucky or Tennessee. However, we are unaware of
any planned changes to State protections at this time.
Further, Cumberland sandwort habitats on both state and federal
conservation lands would remain protected by rules, regulations, or
plans governing the establishment or management of those lands,
relevant sections of which are summarized below. As noted above in
Table 1, 66 of the 71 extant Cumberland sandwort occurrences are
located on Federal or State conservation lands at BSF, PSF, PCNA, and
PSP.
Establishment of the BSF was authorized by section 108 of the Water
Resources Act of 1974. The NPS manages the 125,000-acre (ac) BSF
according to prescriptions established for eight management zones in
Alternative D of the Final General Management Plan/Environmental Impact
Statement for Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area,
Kentucky and Tennessee (NPS 2005, entire). Under this management
framework, habitats occupied by Cumberland sandwort and those that are
potentially suitable for the species fall within the Sensitive Resource
Protection Zone, which is managed to reflect natural processes and be
carefully protected from unnatural degradation (NPS 2005, pp. 31-40).
The 20,887-ac PSF was established in 1935 on lands donated to the
State of Tennessee by Stearns Coal and Lumber Company (retrieved March
13, 2019 from https://www.tn.gov/agriculture/forests/state-forests/pickett.html). The Rules of the Tennessee Department of Agriculture
Division of Forestry, Chapter 0080-7-1 Protection of State Forests,
prohibit destruction or damaging of any natural resource or collection
of plants or botanical specimens, unless authorized by permit from the
district forester. Pickett CCC Memorial State Park is situated within
the PSF. The Rules of the Tennessee Department of Environment and
Conservation, Chapter 0400-0202 Public Use and Recreation, prohibit
users of State parks from destroying, digging, cutting, removing, or
possessing any tree, shrub or other plant, except as permitted by the
Assistant Commissioner of Parks and Recreation (Rule 0400-02-02-.18).
Permits may only be issued for scientific or educational purposes (Rule
0400-02-02-.23). The 3,000-ac PCNA is contiguous to PSF and very near
PSP, the latter of which provides local management of the natural area.
The Tennessee Natural Areas Preservation Act of 1971 forbids the
unauthorized removal or destruction of any rare, threatened, or
endangered species of plants in any natural areas, with civil penalties
of up to $10,000 per day for
[[Page 23313]]
each day during which the prohibited act occurs (T.C.A Sec. 11-14-
1115). Thus, we do not anticipate stressors to increase on conservation
lands where nearly all of the occurrences are located. For the reasons
discussed above, we conclude that inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms
will not threaten the viability of the species into the foreseeable
future.
Determination of Cumberland Sandwort'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 ``endangered species'' or
``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 ``endangered species'' or ``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 section 4(a)(1) factors, we
have found that since listing under the Act, Cumberland sandwort
representation has increased with the discovery of occurrences in the
Obey River watershed. Redundancy also has increased from 11 occurrences
at the time of listing to 71 occurrences known to be extant, including
25 of the 28 occurrences that were included in the species recovery
plan. An assessment of resiliency of these occurrences, taking into
account estimated abundance, substrate condition, and forest condition,
indicates that 57 ranked medium or higher, which we consider to be
resilient. Of these resilient occurrences, 42 are counted towards
meeting and exceeding recovery criteria because they are self-
sustaining and located on protected land. Of the 15 resilient
occurrences that are not counted towards meeting recovery criteria, 10
are located on protected lands but lack a sufficient number of
observations over time to judge trends in their abundance and evaluate
whether they are self-sustaining; thus, we expect they will also
contribute to the species' overall resiliency and redundancy, ensuring
its ability to withstand future catastrophic events (but we are not
relying upon these 10 to make this proposed determination). Because
Cumberland sandwort has increased in representation and redundancy,
generally, and in particular with respect to numbers of resilient,
self-sustaining and protected occurrences, we expect this species to
persist into the future.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the threats faced by the Cumberland
sandwort in developing this proposed rule. Threats reported at the time
of listing related to habitat loss and curtailment of range (Factor A)
have been managed in many locations, and available data indicate the
species possesses greater resilience to effects of substrate
disturbance from trampling and various activities and to effects of
timber harvesting in nearby areas than was assumed at the time of
listing.
We have analyzed or evaluated potential effects of climate change
and low population size (Factor E) and determined that they are not
significant threats to the species nor are likely to be in the
foreseeable future as defined above. Although not all state and federal
regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) will be in effect in the event that
Cumberland sandwort is delisted, those remaining are likely to be
adequate to protect the Cumberland sandwort from threats to its
habitat, given the fact that 66 of the 71 extant occurrences are
located on Federal or State conservation lands. The net effect of
current and foreseeable future stressors to the species, after
considering applicable conservation measures and the existing
regulatory mechanisms, is not sufficient to cause the species to meet
the definition of an endangered or threatened species. Thus, after
assessing the best available information, we conclude that the
Cumberland sandwort no longer meets the definition of endangered or
threatened under the Act 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
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of
its range.
Having determined that the Cumberland sandwort is not in danger of
extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout
all of its range, we now consider whether it may be in danger of
extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in a
significant portion of its range. The range of a species can
theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite number of ways,
so we first screen the potential portions of the species' range to
determine if there are any portions that warrant further consideration.
To do the ``screening'' analysis, we ask whether there are portions of
the species' range for which there is substantial information
indicating that: (1) The portion may be significant; and, (2) the
species may be, in that portion, either in danger of extinction or
likely to become so in the foreseeable future. For a particular
portion, if we cannot answer both questions in the affirmative, then
that portion does not warrant further consideration and the species
does not warrant listing because of its status in that portion of its
range. Conversely, we emphasize that answering both of these questions
in the affirmative is not a determination that the species is in danger
of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future
throughout a significant portion of its range--rather, it is a step in
determining whether a more-detailed analysis of the issue is required.
If we answer these questions in the affirmative, we then conduct a
more thorough analysis to determine whether the portion does indeed
meet both of the ``significant portion of its range'' prongs: (1) The
portion is significant and (2) the species is, in that portion, either
in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable
future. Confirmation that a portion does indeed meet one of these
prongs does not create a presumption, prejudgment, or other
determination as to whether the species is an endangered species or
threatened species. Rather, we must then undertake a more detailed
analysis of the other prong to make that determination. Only if the
portion does indeed meet both prongs would the species warrant listing
because of its status in a significant portion of its range.
At both stages in this process--the stage of screening potential
portions to identify any portions that warrant further consideration
and the stage of undertaking the more detailed analysis of any portions
that do warrant further consideration--it might be more efficient for
us to address the ``significance'' question or the ``status'' question
first. Our selection of which question to address first for a
particular
[[Page 23314]]
portion depends on the biology of the species, its range, and the
threats it faces. 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 second question for that
portion of the species' range.
The range of Cumberland sandwort is restricted to a small
geographic area in portions of five counties, with high similarity in
geological and ecological conditions among occupied sites. Within this
geographic area, the species is known from two watersheds, South Fork
Cumberland and Obey River, where there are 59 and 12 extant
occurrences, respectively. Therefore, applying the process described
above, we first evaluated the status of Cumberland sandwort to
determine if any threats or population declines were concentrated in
any specific portion of the range. Threats related to habitat
modification or curtailment of range primarily affect occurrences in
the South Fork Cumberland drainage. Our analysis of the species
resilience (see above, Recovery), which integrated information on
abundance and threats, determined that 45 of the occurrences within the
South Fork Cumberland and all of the occurrences within the Obey River
drainages had resiliency indices of medium or higher. We have
determined that 40 of these resilient occurrences in the South Fork
Cumberland and 2 in the Obey River drainages are protected and
contribute towards achieving the recovery criteria. The presence of 40
protected and self-sustaining occurrences in the South Fork Cumberland
indicates that threats are not concentrated in this drainage so as to
affect the representation, redundancy, or resiliency of the Cumberland
sandwort. Nine protected occurrences in the Obey River watershed have
resiliency indices of medium or higher, but lack sufficient monitoring
data to evaluate trends in abundance and determine whether they are
self-sustaining. Due to their locations on protected lands, primarily
within PCNA where proposed trail routes are surveyed to minimize
adverse effects to Cumberland sandwort (TDEC no date, p. 10-11), we
expect that these nine occurrences will remain stable for the
foreseeable future, adding to the resilience, representation, and
redundancy afforded by the 42 occurrences currently considered to
contribute to achieving recovery criteria. Based on the distribution of
42 protected and self-sustaining occurrences among the two watersheds,
all located on conservation lands managed according to rules,
regulations, or management plans (NPS 2005, pp. 31-39, TDEC no date,
entire) that protect Cumberland sandwort, we have determined that
threats related to habitat modification or curtailment of range are not
concentrated in any portion of the species' range so as to affect its
representation, redundancy, or resiliency.
We have reviewed other potential threats and conclude that none of
them are concentrated in any portion of the species' range so as to
affect the representation, redundancy, or resiliency of the species.
Therefore, we conclude, based on this screening analysis, that no
portions of the Cumberland sandwort's range warrant further
consideration to determine whether the species may be in danger of
extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in a
significant portion of its range. Thus, we conclude that the species is
not an endangered species or threatened species based on its status in
a significant portion of its range. Our approach to analyzing
significant portions of the species' range in this determination is
consistent with the courts' holdings in Desert Survivors v. Department
of the Interior, No. 16-cv-01165-JCS, 2018 WL 4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug.
24, 2018); Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d,
946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017); and Center for Biological Diversity v.
Everson, 2020 WL 437289 (D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2020).
Determination of Status
Our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information indicates that the Cumberland sandwort 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. Therefore, we
propose to remove the Cumberland sandwort from the List of Endangered
and Threatened Plants.
Effects of This Proposed Rule
This proposal, if made final, would revise 50 CFR 17.12 (h) to
remove the Cumberland sandwort 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 Cumberland sandwort. Federal agencies would no longer be
required to consult with us under section 7 of the Act to ensure that
any action authorized, funded, or carried out by them is not likely to
jeopardize the Cumberland sandwort's continued existence.
This rule will not affect Cumberland sandwort's status as a
threatened or endangered species under State laws or suspend any other
legal protections provided by those laws. States may have more
restrictive laws protecting wildlife, and these will not be affected by
this Federal action. However, this proposed rule may prompt either
Kentucky or Tennessee to remove protection for the Cumberland sandwort
under their endangered species laws, although we are not aware of any
such intention at this time.
Post-Delisting Monitoring
Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us to monitor for not less than
5 years the status of all species that are delisted due to recovery.
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. At the conclusion of the monitoring
period, we will review all available information to determine if re-
listing, the continuation of monitoring, or the termination of
monitoring is appropriate.
Section 4(g) of the Act explicitly requires that we cooperate with
the States in development and implementation of PDM programs. However,
we remain ultimately responsible for compliance with section 4(g) and,
therefore, must remain actively engaged in all phases of PDM. We also
seek active participation of other entities that are expected to assume
responsibilities for the species' conservation after delisting.
We have prepared a draft PDM Plan for Cumberland sandwort (Service
2018). The draft plan describes:
(1) The Cumberland sandwort's condition at the time of delisting;
(2) Thresholds or triggers for potential monitoring outcomes and
conclusions;
(3) Frequency and duration of monitoring;
(4) Monitoring methods including sampling considerations; and
(5) Data compilation and reporting procedures and responsibilities.
The draft plan also proposes a PDM implementation schedule
including timing and responsible parties.
[[Page 23315]]
Concurrent with this proposed delisting rule, we announce the draft
plan's availability for public review at http://www.regulations.gov
under Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2019-0080. Copies can also be obtained
from the Service's Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). We seek information, data, and comments
from the public regarding the draft PDM plan.
Required Determinations
Clarity of the Proposed Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 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:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long,
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.
National Environmental Policy Act
We have determined that we do not need to prepare an environmental
assessment or environmental impact statement, as defined in the
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C 4321 et seq.), in
connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the
Endangered Species Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for
this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR
49244).
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), Executive Order 13175, and the Department
of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. We have determined that
there are no tribal lands that may be affected by this proposal.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is available at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2019-0080, or upon
request from the Field Supervisor, Tennessee Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the
Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
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; 4201-4245, unless
otherwise noted.
Sec. 17.12 [Amended]
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.12(h) by removing the entry for ``Arenaria
cumberlandensis'' under ``FLOWERING PLANTS'' from the List of
Endangered and Threatened Plants.
Aurelia Skipwith,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-08398 Filed 4-24-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
