Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 155 / Monday, August 16, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 45685 

receiving the appeal, an applicant may 

arbitrate the decision of FEMA. To 

request arbitration, the applicant must 

first electronically submit a withdrawal 

of the pending appeal simultaneously to 

the recipient and the FEMA Regional 

Administrator. The applicant must then 

submit a request for arbitration to the 

recipient, the CBCA, and FEMA within 

30 calendar days from the date of the 

withdrawal of the pending appeal. 

(C) Content of request. The request for 

arbitration must contain a written 

statement that specifies the amount in 

dispute, all documentation supporting 

the position of the applicant, the 

disaster number, and the name and 

address of the applicant’s authorized 

representative or counsel. 

(iv) Expenses. Expenses for each party 

will be paid by the party who incurred 

the expense. 

(v) Guidance. FEMA may issue 

separate guidance as necessary to 

supplement paragraph (b)(3) of this 

section. 

(c) Finality of decision. (1) A FEMA 

final agency determination or a decision 

of the Assistant Administrator for the 

Recovery Directorate on a second appeal 

constitutes a final decision of FEMA. 

Final decisions are not subject to further 

administrative review. 

(2) In the alternative, a decision of the 

majority of the CBCA panel constitutes 

a final decision, binding on all parties. 

See 48 CFR 6106.613. Final decisions 

are not subject to further administrative 

review. 

Deanne B. Criswell, 

Administrator, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2021–17213 Filed 8–13–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–19–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2019–0080; 

FXES11130900000–212–FF09E22000] 

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: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), are removing 

Cumberland sandwort (Arenaria 

cumberlandensis) from the Federal List 

of Endangered and Threatened Plants 

(List). This determination is based on a 

thorough review of the best available 

scientific and commercial data, which 

indicate that Cumberland sandwort has 

recovered and no longer meets the 

definition of an endangered or a 

threatened species under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (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 pose a threat to the species, and 

the known range and abundance of 

Cumberland sandwort have increased. 

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. Accordingly, the prohibitions 

and conservation measures provided by 

the Act will no longer apply to this 

species. 

DATES: This rule is effective September 

15, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: The proposed rule and this 

final rule, supporting documents, the 

post-delisting monitoring plan, and the 

comments received on the proposed 

rule are available at http://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2019–0080. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Daniel Elbert, Field Supervisor, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Tennessee 

Ecological Services Field Office, 446 

Neal Street, Cookeville, TN 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 Act, a species may be removed from 

the Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Plants (List) (‘‘delisted’’) if it 

is determined that the species has 

recovered and no longer meets the 

definition of an endangered or 

threatened species. Removing a species 

from the List can only be completed by 

issuing a rule. 

What this document does. This rule 

delists Cumberland sandwort from the 

Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Plants based on the species’ 

recovery. 

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: (A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) 

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. We must consider these same 

factors in delisting a species. 

We have determined that Cumberland 

sandwort is not in danger of extinction 

now nor likely to become so in the 

foreseeable future based on a 

comprehensive review of its status and 

listing factors. Specifically, our recent 

review indicated: (1) An increase in the 

known 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 

or management plans to prevent habitat 

destruction or removal of plants; and (4) 

the implementation of beneficial 

management practices. Accordingly, 

Cumberland sandwort no longer meets 

the definition of an endangered or 

threatened species under the Act. 

Peer review and public comment. In 

accordance with our joint policy on peer 

review published in the Federal 

Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), 

and our August 22, 2016, memorandum 

updating and clarifying the role of peer 

review of listing actions under the Act, 

we sought peer review of our April 27, 

2020, proposed rule to delist the species 

(85 FR 23302). The Service sent the 

proposed rule to five independent peer 

reviewers and received three responses. 

The purpose of peer review is to ensure 

that our determination is based on 

scientifically sound data, assumptions, 

and analyses. The peer reviewers have 

expertise in the biology, habitat, and 

threats to the species. 

Previous Federal Actions 

On April 27, 2020, we published in 

the Federal Register (85 FR 23302) a 

proposed rule to remove Cumberland 

sandwort from the Federal List of 

Endangered and Threatened Plants (i.e., 

to delist the species). Please refer to that 

proposed rule for a detailed description 

of previous Federal actions concerning 

this species. The proposed rule and 

supplemental documents are provided 

at http://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2019–0080. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
45686 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 155 / Monday, August 16, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

Summary of Changes From the 

Proposed Rule 

We made no substantive changes to 

the proposed rule in this final rule. We 

made minor editorial changes in this 

rule in response to comments we 

received on the proposed rule. 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

In our April 27, 2020, proposed rule 

to delist Cumberland sandwort (85 FR 

23302), we requested that all interested 

parties submit written comments on the 

proposed delisting and our draft postdelisting monitoring (PDM) plan by June 

26, 2020. We also contacted appropriate 

Federal and State agencies, scientific 

experts and organizations, and other 

interested parties and invited them to 

comment on the proposed delisting and 

draft PDM plan. A newspaper notice 

inviting general public comments was 

published in the Fentress Courier (major 

local newspaper) and also announced 

using online and social media sources. 

We received one substantive comment 

from the public, which is discussed 

below under (1) Comment, and no 

requests for a public hearing. 

In addition, we reviewed all 

comments we received from the peer 

reviewers for substantive issues and 

new information regarding the proposed 

delisting rule and PDM plan for 

Cumberland sandwort. The peer 

reviewers generally concurred with our 

methods and conclusions, and they 

provided additional information, 

clarifications, and suggestions to 

improve the final delisting rule. Peer 

reviewer comments are summarized 

below under (2) Comment through (4) 

Comment, and incorporated into this 

final rule as appropriate. 

(1) Comment: One commenter 

expressed concern that the unique 

habitat of the species would be less 

protected if the species were delisted. 

Our response: Cumberland sandwort 

habitats on both State and Federal 

conservation lands will remain 

protected by rules, regulations, or plans 

governing the establishment or 

management of those lands. The species 

is also still State-protected where it 

occurs. At this time, Cumberland 

sandwort meets the standard for 

delisting under the Act: It no longer 

meets the Act’s definitions of an 

‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened 

species.’’ We will continue to work with 

recovery partners to maintain the 

species’ recovered state and conduct 

post-delisting monitoring, as well. 

(2) Comment: One peer reviewer 

requested clarification concerning 

whether abundance estimates, in 

addition to hand drawn maps and the 

numbers of patches depicted on the 

maps, were used in determining 

population resiliency indices and 

evaluating population trends. The 

reviewer also asked how estimates of 

abundance were determined. 

Our response: We explain below 

under Framework for Monitoring and 

Evaluating Trends that we used visual 

estimates of abundance or discrete 

counts of individuals, where available, 

to supplement data provided on hand 

drawn maps when determining 

population resiliency indices and 

evaluating population trends. 

(3) Comment: One peer reviewer 

informed us that data on global forest 

loss (https://

earthenginepartners.appspot.com/ 

science-2013-global-forest) were 

available to use in quantifying forest 

loss in portions of the watersheds where 

Cumberland sandwort is found. 

Our response: We used the data 

available at the reference provided by 

the peer reviewer to provide an 

objective basis for evaluating whether 

we correctly identified evidence of 

logging activity in forests near 

Cumberland sandwort occurrences. 

Based on this evaluation, we correctly 

identified locations where logging 

activities had taken place in the vicinity 

of Cumberland sandwort occurrences 

when preparing the April 27, 2020, 

proposed rule to delist Cumberland 

sandwort (85 FR 23302). 

(4) Comment: One peer reviewer 

asked whether disturbance from 

recreational use was likely to increase in 

proportion to human population growth 

and increased participation in outdoor 

activities. The reviewer also asked how 

Cumberland sandwort population 

trends in sites where management had 

occurred to reduce the threat of 

inadvertent trampling by recreationists 

compared to population trends in 

unmanaged sites where the threat of 

trampling existed. 

Our response: We address this 

comment below under Habitat Loss and 

Curtailment of Range where we discuss 

the lack of a clear trend in available data 

regarding visitation rates to lands where 

Cumberland sandwort occurs. We also 

added a discussion comparing 

population trends in sites where 

protective measures have been installed 

to reduce the threat of trampling to 

trends that have been observed in other 

sites where the risk of trampling has 

been previously recorded but no 

protective measures have been installed. 

Final Delisting Determination 

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. 

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 changes have been made to 

the species’ taxonomy since the time of 

listing, we are removing the species 

from the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Plants using the name by 

which it was initially listed, Arenaria 

cumberlandensis (=Mononeuria 

cumberlandensis). 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 155 / Monday, August 16, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 45687 

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 in) 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 finegrained, 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 

luciae-brauniae (Lucy Braun’s 

snakeroot); Stenanthium diffusum 

(diffuse feather-bells); and the 

bryophytes Vittaria appalachiana 

(Appalachian shoestring fern), 

Bryoxiphium norvegicum (Norway 

bryoxiphium moss), and Scopelophila 

cataractae (cataract scopelophila moss) 

(Tennessee Department of Environment 

and Conservation (TDEC) 2011b, p. 5). 

Distribution 

When Cumberland sandwort was 

listed as endangered (53 FR 23745; June 

23, 1988), the species was known from 

11 occurrences (Wofford and Smith 

1980, pp. 9–18), which were treated as 

5 populations. 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 June 23, 

1988, 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 four 

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, 

Tennessee, occurrence reported in the 

recovery plan, with only the site name 

‘‘Sunbright’’ given for location 

information, also cannot be verified. No 

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 five 

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 

County, 26 in Fentress County, 38 in 

Pickett County, and 5 in Scott County, 

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 of these occurrences is 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). 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
45688 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 155 / Monday, August 16, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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), 

Tennessee (Winder 2004, p. 37). The 

genetic structure of the sole Kentucky 

population and its relation to sites 

sampled in Tennessee are unknown. 

Framework for Monitoring and 

Evaluating Trends 

The TDEC Natural Heritage Program 

began monitoring Cumberland sandwort 

in Tennessee during 2000, visually 

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 the highest 

priority sites (i.e., Tier 1) being the 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 

2 or more years, making it possible to 

assess whether Cumberland sandwort 

had declined, remained stable, or 

increased either in estimated abundance 

or area occupied. Available abundance 

data were typically produced by 

visually estimating numbers of plants, 

although precise count data were 

available in some instances. 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 handdrawn 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. Maps are also updated to 

depict new patches that might form due 

to recruitment of individuals in 

previously unoccupied habitat. 

Estimates of abundance, where 

available, provided supplemental data 

for qualitatively evaluating trends 

within mapped patches of habitat. 

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 occasions, 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 (16 U.S.C. 1531 

et seq.) directs us to develop and 

implement recovery plans for the 

conservation and survival of endangered 

and threatened species unless we 

determine that such a plan will not 

promote the conservation of the species. 

Recovery plans must, to the maximum 

extent practicable, include objective, 

measurable criteria which, when met, 

would result in a determination, in 

accordance with the provisions of 

section 4 of the Act, that the species be 

removed from the list. 

Recovery plans provide a roadmap for 

us and our partners on methods of 

enhancing conservation and minimizing 

threats to listed species, as well as 

measurable criteria against which to 

evaluate progress towards recovery and 

assess the species’ likely future 

condition. However, they are not 

regulatory documents and do not 

substitute for the determinations and 

promulgation of regulations required 

under section 4(a)(1) of the Act. A 

decision to revise the status of a species, 

or to delist a species is ultimately based 

on an analysis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available to determine 

whether a species is no longer an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species, regardless of whether that 

information differs from the recovery 

plan. 

There are many paths to 

accomplishing recovery of a species, 

and recovery may be achieved without 

all criteria being fully met. For example, 

one or more criteria may have been 

exceeded while other criteria may not 

yet be accomplished. In that instance, 

we may determine that the threats are 

minimized sufficiently and that the 

species is robust enough that it no 

longer meets the definition of an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species. In other cases, we may discover 

new recovery opportunities after having 

finalized the recovery plan. Parties 

seeking to conserve the species may use 

these opportunities instead of methods 

identified in the recovery plan. 

Likewise, we may learn new 

information about the species after we 

finalize the recovery plan. The new 

information may change the extent to 

which existing criteria are appropriate 

for identifying recovery of the species. 

The recovery of a species is a dynamic 

process requiring adaptive management 

that may, or may not, follow all of the 

guidance provided in a recovery plan. 

The Cumberland Sandwort Recovery 

Plan (Service 1996, pp. iv, 10) included 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 155 / Monday, August 16, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 45689 

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 the 

range of possible environmental 

conditions. 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. Occurrence size 

influences resiliency because 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 

(Mu ̈nzbergova ́ 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). 

Incorporating available data regarding 

disturbance to Cumberland sandwort 

plants or the substrates where they 

occur into the resiliency assessment 

serves as a proxy indicating whether 

physical conditions are appropriate to 

support multiple life stages. 

Undisturbed substrates contribute to 

Cumberland sandwort resiliency by 

providing suitable sites for germination, 

growth, and reproduction to occur. 

Similarly, evaluating forest condition in 

the vicinity of Cumberland sandwort 

occurrences is a proxy indicating 

whether ecological conditions are likely 

to support resilience to environmental 

variation. 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; Mu ̈nzbergova ́ 2006, p. 148) or 

with areal coverage less than 1 square 

meter (m2) were ranked ‘‘low’’; 

occurrences with 100–1,000 individuals 

or with areal coverage ranging from 1 to 

5 m2 were ranked ‘‘medium’’; and 

occurrences with more than 1,000 

individuals or areal coverage greater 

than 5 m2 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 nonnative, evergreen forest types. We 

used available data on global forest loss 

to provide an objective basis for 

confirming our determination of 

locations where timber harvest was 

suspected to have taken place (Hansen 

et al. 2013, entire). Forest conditions 

were ranked ‘‘high’’ in locations where 

late seral forest was present upslope and 

downslope of occupied sites and in 

adjacent areas; ‘‘medium’’ in locations 

where risk of exposure to the threat was 

moderate based on evidence of logging 

having occurred within the prior 15 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
45690 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 155 / Monday, August 16, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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 three resiliency factors, 

12 were ranked as low in abundance, 27 

ranked medium, and 30 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 three 

resiliency factors (abundance, substrate 

condition, and forest condition), we 

calculated an overall resiliency index 

for 68 of the 70 Tennessee occurrences 

(see Table 1, below) and the sole 

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 (Sgro` 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 greater than 

2.0 and less than 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 Big South 

Fork National Scenic River and 

Recreation Area (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 68 of the 70 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 Lowmedium Medium Mediumhigh 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 (see Table 1, above) 

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 (see 

Table 2, below), 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, above, 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. These data 

support the conclusion that one 

criterion for removing Cumberland 

sandwort from the List has been 

exceeded, 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

Agency Land unit Number of 

occurrences * 

National Park Service ................................................. Big South Fork National Scenic River and Recreation Area (BSF).27. 

Tennessee Division of Forestry (TDF) ........................ Pickett State Forest (PSF) ........................................ 29 (4 partially on TSP lands). 

Tennessee Division of Natural Areas ......................... Pogue Creek Canyon State Natural Area (PCNA) ... 7. 

Tennessee State Parks (TSP) .................................... Pickett CCC Memorial State Park (PSP) .................. 7 (4 partially on TDF lands). 

* Number of occurrences in this table sums to 70, but 4 occurrences occupy habitats spanning adjacent lands owned by TDF and TSP and are 

counted only once for the total. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 155 / Monday, August 16, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 45691 

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, which provides for 

redundancy across areas of 

representation 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 

many of the occurrences in this 

watershed and the 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. 

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 four counties in Tennessee and 

one in Kentucky. 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

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. 

These factors represent broad 

categories of natural or human-caused 

actions or conditions that could have an 

effect on a species’ continued existence. 

In evaluating these actions and 

conditions, we look for those that may 

have a negative effect on individuals of 

the species, as well as other actions or 

conditions that may ameliorate any 

negative effects or may have positive 

effects. 

We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in 

general to actions or conditions that are 

known to or are reasonably likely to 

negatively affect individuals of a 

species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes 

actions or conditions that have a direct 

impact on individuals (direct impacts), 

as well as those that affect individuals 

through alteration of their habitat or 

required resources (stressors). The term 

‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either 

together or separately—the source of the 

action or condition or the action or 

condition itself. 

However, the mere identification of 

any threat(s) does not necessarily mean 

that the species meets the statutory 

definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or 

a ‘‘threatened species.’’ In determining 

whether a species meets either 

definition, we must evaluate all 

identified threats by considering the 

species’ expected response and the 

effects of the threats—in light of those 

actions and conditions that will 

ameliorate the threats—on an 

individual, population, and species 

level. We evaluate each threat and its 

expected effects on the species, then 

analyze the cumulative effect of all of 

the threats on the species as a whole. 

We also consider the cumulative effect 

of the threats in light of those actions 

and conditions that will have positive 

effects on the species—such as any 

existing regulatory mechanisms or 

conservation efforts. The Secretary 

determines whether the species meets 

the definition of an ‘‘endangered 

species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’ only 

after conducting this cumulative 

analysis and describing the expected 

effect on the species now and in the 

foreseeable future. 

The Act does not define the term 

‘‘foreseeable future,’’ which appears in 

the statutory definition of ‘‘threatened 

species.’’ Our implementing regulations 

at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a 

framework for evaluating the foreseeable 

future on a case-by-case basis. The term 

foreseeable future extends only so far 

into the future as we can reasonably 

determine that both the future threats 

and the species’ responses to those 

threats are likely. In other words, the 

foreseeable future is the period of time 

in which we can make reliable 

predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not mean 

‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to provide 

a reasonable degree of confidence in the 

prediction. Thus, a prediction is reliable 

if it is reasonable to depend on it when 

making decisions. 

It is not always possible or necessary 

to define foreseeable future as a 

particular number of years. Analysis of 

the foreseeable future uses the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

and should consider the timeframes 

applicable to the relevant threats and to 

the species’ likely responses to those 

threats in view of its life-history 

characteristics. Data that are typically 

relevant to assessing the species’ 

biological response include speciesspecific factors such as lifespan, 

reproductive rates or productivity, 

certain behaviors, and other 

demographic factors. 

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. 

To establish the foreseeable future for 

the purpose of determining whether 

Cumberland sandwort meets the 

definition of an endangered or 

threatened 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, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
45692 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 155 / Monday, August 16, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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, we consider the 

foreseeable future for Cumberland 

sandwort to be approximately 30 years 

for the purposes of this rule. 

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 

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 (E.O. 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 

abundance has declined at 6 of the 12 

sites with high exposure risk, while 6 

have remained stable. 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. 

Regardless of the level of exposure risk, 

no occurrences are known to have been 

extirpated as a result of trampling or soil 

disturbance from recreational use, 

wildlife, or relic digging. 

Protective features, including fences, 

boardwalks, barricades, rerouted trails, 

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). Seven of these sites 

where management has occurred to 

reduce the threat of trampling have 

remained stable or seen increases in 

Cumberland sandwort, whereas 20 of 

the 30 sites where the risk of trampling 

has been noted but not managed have 

remained stable. This information 

indicates that management efforts have 

been effective at reducing adverse 

effects, especially when considering that 

such management was provided in sites 

where the greatest threats were present. 

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. 

Available data reveal the lack of a 

clear trend in visitation rates to 

recreational lands where Cumberland 

sandwort occurs. The BSF experienced 

an overall decline in annual visitation 

levels from 892,322, in 1995, to 643,135 

in 2015 (NPS 2020). Conversely, PSP, 

saw an overall increase from 223,397 to 

271,889 annual visitors between 2009 

and 2013 (Tennessee State Parks, no 

date). We are not aware of data 

regarding predicted trends in future 

visitation for these parks, nor are data 

available to estimate what proportion of 

visitors use trails where Cumberland 

sandwort is located. 

Timber harvest occurs at PSF, but 

does not occur at BSF, PSP, or PCNA, 

limiting the potential magnitude of this 

activity, determined at the time of 

listing 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, showing that 3 

have declined and 7 have remained 

stable. Monitoring data collected by 

TDEC since 2016 at three of these 

declining occurrences 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 

determined at the time of listing. When 

Cumberland sandwort is removed from 

the List (see DATES, above), our postdelisting monitoring plan (see Postdelisting Monitoring, below) identifies 

50 occurrences that will be monitored 

over a period of at least 5 years 

following delisting, including 27 

occurrences where risks of exposure to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 155 / Monday, August 16, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 45693 

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 or could be 

exposed to potential threats that were 

previously determined 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 from the first to the 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 

Cumberland sandwort is resilient to the 

factors discussed above that were 

determined at the time of listing to 

constitute a threat of habitat 

modification or curtailment of the 

species’ range. Additionally, 

management actions have been effective 

at reducing potential adverse effects of 

disturbance associated with recreational 

activities at sites where those activities 

are most prevalent. 

Limited Distribution and Small 

Population Sizes 

The listing rule for Cumberland 

sandwort (53 FR 23745; June 23, 1988) 

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, 

June 23, 1988) to 71 currently (TNHID 

2018). Three projects have been funded 

to support searches for new Cumberland 

sandwort occurrences (Kentucky State 

Nature Preserves Commission (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 the Act’s section 6 grants to 

State agencies for endangered species 

recovery, contributed greatly to 

increasing the species’ distribution to 

the 71 extant occurrences known today. 

Fourteen protected and self-sustaining 

occurrences are located outside of 

Pickett County, satisfying the recovery 

criterion concerning geographic 

distribution. Also, 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 1988 listing rule discussed small 

population size as a threat to many 

occurrences, but did not include 

information on population sizes known 

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 m2 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 that species’ range 

(Wyatt 1984, p. 815). Based on available 

data, 12 populations consist of fewer 

than 100 individuals or occupy less 

than 1 m2 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 populations are likely to persist 

when threats are minimized (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 m2 of 

habitat, and 30 occurrences contain 

more than 1,000 individuals or occupy 

greater than 5 m2 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 risks 

associated with small population size 

are a potential threat likely affecting less 

than 20 percent of the 71 extant 

Cumberland sandwort occurrences. 

Despite the potential risks associated 

with small population sizes, available 

data demonstrate long-term persistence 

of Cumberland sandwort at all sites 

where abundance is low and stable or 

increasing trends at more than 60 

percent of the small populations for 

which trend data are available. Thus, 

available data support the conclusion 

that small population size is neither a 

widespread threat to Cumberland 

sandwort nor has it been demonstrated 

to place populations at high risk of 

decline or extirpation. 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
45694 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 155 / Monday, August 16, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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 (°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 

2.5 degrees Celsius (°C) (4.5 °F) (scenario 

B1) to 5 °C (9 °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, 

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 °C (5.7 °F), minimum temperature 

will increase by 3.1 °C (5.6 °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 and 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) instead of the 

more extreme scenario that we used in 

the NCCV to project the 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 155 / Monday, August 16, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 45695 

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 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). 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 

E.O. 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 m2 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 three occurrences with fewer than 

100 individuals or that were less than 1 

m2 in size, all of which remained stable. 

Thus, we conclude that climate change 

will not pose a threat to 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; that is, 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 

final rule to delist the species. Our 

analysis has identified no rangewide 

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 Existing 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. 

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 the 

Office of Kentucky Nature Preserves 

(OKNP, formerly KSNPC) and TDEC, 

using funding and authorities provided 

through cooperative agreements with 

the Service under section 6 of the Act 

for endangered species recovery. When 

Cumberland sandwort is delisted (see 

DATES, above), these agencies will no 

longer receive such funding specifically 

for Cumberland sandwort conservation 

efforts, but could allocate a portion of 

overall funds they receive for postdelisting monitoring of the species. 

The Kentucky Rare Plants Recognition 

Act, Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS), 

chapter 146, sections 600–619, directs 

the OKNP 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
45696 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 155 / Monday, August 16, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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 (see 

Tennessee Code, title 70, chapter 8, part 

3) 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 the 

species’ status in Kentucky or 

Tennessee. However, we are unaware of 

any planned changes to State 

protections at this time. 

Cumberland sandwort habitats on 

both State and Federal conservation 

lands will 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 2, 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 Development Act of 1974 

(Pub. L. 93–251, March 7, 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 for careful 

protection from unnatural degradation 

(NPS 2005, pp. 31–40). As a result, this 

designation provides adequate 

protection to the 27 occurences within 

the BSF. 

The 20,887-ac PSF was established in 

1935, on lands donated to the State of 

Tennessee by Stearns Coal and Lumber 

Company (Tennessee Department of 

Agriculture 2019). The rules of the 

Tennessee Department of Agriculture 

Division of Forestry (Tennessee 

Administrative Code (TAC), 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 Civilian Conservation 

Corps (CCC) Memorial State Park is 

situated within the PSF, but as a State 

park is managed under separate rules 

from the State forest lands surrounding 

it. The rules of the Tennessee 

Department of Environment and 

Conservation (TAC, chapter 0400–02– 

02, 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 (see TAC 0400–02–02–.18). 

Permits may only be issued for scientific 

or educational purposes (see TAC 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, albeit 

according to more protective regulations 

applicable to designated State natural 

areas. 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 each day during which the 

prohibited act occurs (see Tennessee 

Code, title 11, chapter 14, part 1, section 

11–14–115). 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 

regulatory mechanisms are adequate to 

address threats that could result in 

habitat loss or curtailment of the species 

range 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, and considering the comments 

we received, 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 (Service 1996, pp. 

6–8). An assessment of resiliency of 

these occurrences, taking into account 

estimated abundance, substrate 

condition, and forest condition, 

indicates that 57 occurrences ranked 

medium or higher, which we consider 

to be resilient. Of these resilient 

occurrences, 42 meeting and exceeding 

recovery criteria because they are selfsustaining 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 selfsustaining; 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 final 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 155 / Monday, August 16, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 45697 

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 have 

determined that the species is currently 

viable and expect this species to be 

viable into the foreseeable future. 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the threats faced by 

Cumberland sandwort in developing the 

April 27, 2020, proposed rule (85 FR 

23302) and this final 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 determined 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 now 

nor are they likely to be in the 

foreseeable future (as defined above). 

Although the Cumberland sandwort will 

no longer receive the protections of the 

Act once it is delisted (see DATES, 

above), the remaining regulatory 

mechansims (Factor D) are adequate to 

protect 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. Considering the effect of current 

and future stressors to the species, and 

taking into account applicable 

conservation measures and the existing 

regulatory mechanisms, the species is 

not currently in danger of extinction, 

nor is it likely to become so in the 

foreseeable future, throughout all of its 

range. 

Status Throughout a Significant Portion 

of Its Range 

Under the Act and our implementing 

regulations, a species may warrant 

listing if it is in danger of extinction or 

likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. Having determined 

that 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—that is, whether 

there is any portion of the species’ range 

for which it is true that both (1) the 

portion is significant; and (2) the species 

is in danger of extinction now or likely 

to become so in the foreseeable future in 

that portion. Depending on the case, it 

might be more efficient for us to address 

the ‘‘significance’’ question or the 

‘‘status’’ question first. We can choose to 

address either question first. Regardless 

of which question we address first, if we 

reach a negative answer with respect to 

the first question that we address, we do 

not need to evaluate the other question 

for that portion of the species’ range. 

In undertaking this analysis for 

Cumberland sandwort, we choose to 

address the status question first—we 

consider information pertaining to the 

geographic distribution of both the 

species and the threats that the species 

faces to identify any portions of the 

range where the species is endangered 

or threatened. For Cumberland 

sandwort, we considered whether the 

threats are geographically concentrated 

in any portion of the species’ range at 

a biologically meaningful scale. We 

examined the following threats: Habitat 

modification and curtailment of range, 

including cumulative effects. 

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 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, pp. 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 found no concentration of threats 

in any portion of Cumberland 

sandwort’s range at a biologically 

meaningful scale. Therefore, no portion 

of the species’ range can provide a basis 

for determining that the species is in 

danger of extinction now or likely to 

become so in the foreseeable future in 

a significant portion of its range, and we 

find the species is not in danger of 

extinction now or likely to become so in 

the foreseeable future in any significant 

portion of its range. This 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), and Center for 

Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. 

Supp. 3d, 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017). 

Determination of Status 

Our review of the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

indicates that Cumberland sandwort is 

not in danger of extinction nor likely to 

become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range. 

Therefore, we find that 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 are 

removing the species from the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Plants. 

Effects of This Rule 

This final rule revises 50 CFR 17.12(h) 

to remove Cumberland sandwort from 

the Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Plants. The prohibitions and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
45698 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 155 / Monday, August 16, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

conservation measures provided by the 

Act, particularly through sections 7 and 

9, will no longer apply to Cumberland 

sandwort. Federal agencies will no 

longer be required to consult with us 

under section 7 of the Act in the event 

that activities they authorize, fund, or 

carry out may affect Cumberland 

sandwort. There is no critical habitat 

designated for Cumberland sandwort; 

therefore, this rule does not affect 50 

CFR 17.96. 

This rule will not affect Cumberland 

sandwort’s status as an endangered or 

threatened species under State laws or 

suspend any other legal protections 

provided by those laws. States may have 

more restrictive laws protecting wildlife 

and plants, and these will not be 

affected by this Federal action. 

However, this final rule may prompt 

either Kentucky or Tennessee to remove 

protection for 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, 

in cooperation with the States, to 

implement a monitoring program for not 

less than 5 years for all species that have 

been delisted due to recovery. Postdelisting 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 prepared a PDM plan for 

Cumberland sandwort (Service 2020). 

The 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; 

(5) Data compilation and reporting 

procedures and responsibilities; and 

(6) A proposed PDM implementation 

schedule, including timing and 

responsible parties. 

It is our intent to work with our 

partners to maintain the recovered 

status of the Cumberland sandwort. 

Required Determinations 

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 (Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments), 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. In 

accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 

of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act), we readily acknowledge 

our responsibilities to work directly 

with Tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

Tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to Tribes. 

We have determined that no Tribes will 

be affected by this rule because no 

Tribal lands, sacred sites, or resources 

will be affected by the removal of 

Cumberland sandwort from the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Plants. 

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 

Tennessee Ecological Services Field 

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

Author 

The primary authors of this rule are 

the staff members of the Tennessee 

Ecological Services Field Office. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we amend part 17, 

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth 

below: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

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

1544; 4201–4245, unless otherwise noted. 

§ 17.12 [Amended] 

■ 2. Amend § 17.12 in paragraph (h) by 

removing the entry for ‘‘Arenaria 

cumberlandensis’’ under ‘‘FLOWERING 

PLANTS’’ from the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Plants. 

Martha Williams, 

Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the 

Delegated Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–17468 Filed 8–13–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1