Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

45688

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

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2011a, entire, 2014 TDEC 2014, entire, and 2017 TDEC unpublished data.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and 2017 TDEC unpublished data.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
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:35 Aug 13, 2021

Jkt 253001

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

PO 00000

Frm 00068

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

are stable, and 1 has increased McCoy 2018, pers. comm..
Recovery Section 4f 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 4a1 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
E:FRFM16AUR1.SGM

16AUR1