Rule2022-28233
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; One Species Not Warranted for Delisting and Seven Species Not Warranted for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
December 29, 2022
Issuing agencies
Interior DepartmentFish and Wildlife Service
Abstract
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce findings that one species is not warranted for delisting and that seven species are not warranted for listing as endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After a thorough review of the best available scientific and commercial information, we find that it is not warranted at this time to delist Bone Cave harvestman (Texella reyesi; formerly listed as endangered as the Bee Creek Cave harvestman, Texella reddelli). We find that it is not warranted at this time to list Brandegee's buckwheat (Eriogonum brandegeei Rydberg), Chowanoke crayfish (Faxonius virginiensis), Cisco milkvetch (Astragalus sabulosus), stage station milkvetch (A. vehiculus), Isely's milkvetch (A. iselyi), Columbia Oregonian (Cryptomastix hendersoni), and Rye Cove cave isopod (Lirceus culveri). However, we ask the public to submit to us at any time any new information relevant to the status of any of the species mentioned above or their habitats.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 249 (Thursday, December 29, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 249 (Thursday, December 29, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 80080-80088]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-28233]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 234]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; One Species Not
Warranted for Delisting and Seven Species Not Warranted for Listing as
Endangered or Threatened Species
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notification of findings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce
findings that one species is not warranted for delisting and that seven
species are not warranted for listing as endangered or threatened
species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act).
After a thorough review of the best available scientific and commercial
information, we find that it is not warranted at this time to delist
Bone Cave harvestman (Texella reyesi; formerly listed as endangered as
the Bee Creek Cave harvestman, Texella reddelli). We find that it is
not warranted at this time to list Brandegee's buckwheat (Eriogonum
brandegeei Rydberg), Chowanoke crayfish (Faxonius virginiensis), Cisco
milkvetch (Astragalus sabulosus), stage station milkvetch (A.
vehiculus), Isely's milkvetch (A. iselyi), Columbia Oregonian
(Cryptomastix hendersoni), and Rye Cove cave isopod (Lirceus culveri).
However, we ask the public to submit to us at any time any new
information relevant to the status of any of the species mentioned
above or their habitats.
DATES: The findings in this document were made on December 29, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Detailed descriptions of the bases for these findings are
available on the internet at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under the
following docket numbers:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Docket No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bone Cave harvestman......................... FWS-R2-ES-2022-0157
Brandegee's buckwheat........................ FWS-R6-ES-2022-0127
Chowanoke crayfish........................... FWS-R5-ES-2022-0128
Cisco milkvetch.............................. FWS-R6-ES-2022-0129
Stage station milkvetch...................... FWS-R6-ES-2022-0130
Isely's milkvetch............................ FWS-R6-ES-2022-0131
Columbia Oregonian........................... FWS-R1-ES-2022-0132
Rye Cove cave isopod......................... FWS-R5-ES-2022-0133
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 80081]]
Those descriptions are also available by contacting the appropriate
person as specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Please
submit any new information, materials, comments, or questions
concerning this finding to the appropriate person, as specified under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Contact information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bone Cave harvestman......... Michael Warriner, Supervisory Fish and
Wildlife Biologist, Austin Ecological
Services Field Office,
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5835313b30393d34072f392a2a31363d2a183e2f2b763f372e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3e53575d565f5b5261495f4c4c57505b4c7e58494d10595148">[email protected]</span></a>, 512-490-0057.
Brandegee's buckwheat........ Liisa Niva, Eastern Colorado Supervisor,
Colorado Field Office,
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a6cacfcfd5c7f9c8cfd0c7e6c0d1d588c1c9d0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="15797c7c66744a7b7c6374557362663b727a63">[email protected]</span></a>, 303-436-4773.
Chowanoke crayfish, Rye Cove Cindy Shulz, Field Supervisor, Virginia
cave isopod. Field Office, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#aecdc7c0cad7f1ddc6dbc2d4eec8d9dd80c9c1d8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="87e4eee9e3fed8f4eff2ebfdc7e1f0f4a9e0e8f1">[email protected]</span></a>, 804-
693-6694.
Cisco milkvetch, Stage Yvette Converse, Field Supervisor, Utah
station milkvetch, Isely's Ecological Services Field Office,
milkvetch. <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#94ede2f1e0e0f1cbf7fbfae2f1e6e7f1d4f2e3e7baf3fbe2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="95ece3f0e1e1f0caf6fafbe3f0e7e6f0d5f3e2e6bbf2fae3">[email protected]</span></a>, 801-975-3330.
Columbia Oregonian........... Craig Rowland, Deputy State Supervisor,
Portland, Oregon Regional Office,
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#452637242c221a372a3229242b21052332366b222a33"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f09382919997af829f879c919e94b0968783de979f86">[email protected]</span></a>, 503-231-6179.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of
hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or
TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals
outside the United States should use the relay services offered within
their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in
the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we
are required to make a finding on whether or not a petitioned action is
warranted within 12 months after receiving any petition that we have
determined contains substantial scientific or commercial information
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted (known as a
``12-month finding''). We must make a finding that the petitioned
action is: (1) Not warranted; (2) warranted; or (3) warranted but
precluded by other listing activity. We must publish a notification of
these 12-month findings in the Federal Register.
Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing
regulations at part 424 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(50 CFR part 424) set forth procedures for adding species to, removing
species from, or reclassifying species on the Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists). The Act defines ``species'' as
including any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any
distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or
wildlife which interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). The Act
defines ``endangered species'' as any species that is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16
U.S.C. 1532(6)), and ``threatened species'' as any species that is
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C.
1532(20)). Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be
determined to be an endangered species or a threatened species because
of any of the following five factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
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
expected response by the species, and the effects of the threats--in
light of those actions and conditions that will ameliorate the
threats--on an individual, population, and species level. We evaluate
each threat and its expected effects on the species, then analyze the
cumulative effect of all of the threats on the species as a whole. We
also consider the cumulative effect of the threats in light of those
actions and conditions that will have positive effects on the species,
such as any existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The
Secretary determines whether the species meets the Act's definition of
an ``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species'' only after
conducting this cumulative analysis and describing the expected effect
on the species now and in the foreseeable future.
The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' The
regulatory language that is applicable to determinations of the
foreseeable future is contained in the regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d)
promulgated in 2019 (In re: Washington Cattlemen's Ass'n, No. 22-70194
(9th Cir. Sept. 21, 2022) (staying the district court's vacatur of the
2019 regulations pending resolution of the motion for reconsideration)
(Washington Cattlemen's)). However, those regulations remain the
subject of ongoing litigation, and their continued applicability is
therefore uncertain. If the litigation results in vacatur of the 2019
regulations, the regulations that were in effect before those 2019
regulations (the pre-2019 regulations) would again become the governing
law for listing decisions. Because of the uncertainty surrounding the
legal status of the regulations, we undertook two analyses of the
foreseeable future for each species identified in this notification of
findings: one under the 2019 regulations and one under the pre-
[[Page 80082]]
2019 regulations, which may be reviewed in the 2018 edition of the Code
of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d). Those pre-2019 regulations
did not include provisions clarifying the meaning of ``foreseeable
future,'' so we applied a 2009 Department of the Interior Solicitor's
opinion (M-37021, ``The Meaning of `Foreseeable Future' in Section 3(2)
of the Endangered Species Act,'' Jan. 16, 2009).
The analyses under both the 2019 regulations and the pre-2019
regulations are included in the decision file for these findings and
are posted on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under the appropriate docket
numbers for each species under ADDRESSES, above. Based on those
analyses, we concluded that our determination of the foreseeable future
would be the same under the pre-2019 regulations as under the 2019
regulations for each species included in this notification of findings
and that our determination that delisting one species is not warranted
would be the same under the pre-2019 regulations as under the 2019
regulations.
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' responses to those threats in view of its life-history
characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing the
species' biological response include species-specific factors such as
lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and
other demographic factors.
In conducting our evaluation of the five factors provided in
section 4(a)(1) of the Act to determine whether the Bone Cave
harvestman (Texella reyesi; formerly listed as endangered as the Bee
Creek Cave harvestman, Texella reddelli), Brandegee's buckwheat
(Eriogonum brandegeei Rydberg), Chowanoke crayfish (Faxonius
virginiensis), Cisco milkvetch (Astragalus sabulosus), stage station
milkvetch (A. vehiculus), Isely's milkvetch (A. iselyi), Columbia
Oregonian (Cryptomastix hendersoni), and Rye Cove cave isopod (Lirceus
culveri) meet the Act's definition of ``endangered species'' or
``threatened species,'' we considered and thoroughly evaluated the best
scientific and commercial information available regarding the past,
present, and future stressors and threats. We reviewed the petitions,
information available in our files, and other available published and
unpublished information for all these species. Our evaluation may
include information from recognized experts; Federal, State, and Tribal
governments; academic institutions; foreign governments; private
entities; and other members of the public.
In accordance with the regulations at 50 CFR 424.14(h)(2)(i), this
document announces the not-warranted findings for eight species (on a
petition to delist one species and petitions to list seven species), in
accordance with the regulations at 50 CFR 424.14(h)(2)(i). We have also
elected to include brief summaries of the analyses on which these
findings are based. We provide the full analyses, including the reasons
and data on which the findings are based, in the decisional file for
each of the eight actions included in this document. The following is a
description of the documents containing these analyses:
The species assessment form for the Bone Cave harvestman contains
more detailed biological information, a thorough analysis of the
listing factors, a list of literature cited, and an explanation of why
we determined that the species meets the Act's definition of an
``endangered species.'' The species assessment forms for Brandegee's
buckwheat, Chowanoke crayfish, Cisco milkvetch, stage station
milkvetch, Isely's milkvetch, Columbia Oregonian, and Rye Cove cave
isopod contain more detailed biological information, a thorough
analysis of the listing factors, a list of literature cited, and an
explanation of why we determined that each species does not meet the
Act's definition of an ``endangered species'' or a ``threatened
species.'' To inform our status reviews, we completed species status
assessment (SSA) reports for the Bone Cave harvestman (Service 2021,
entire), Brandegee's buckwheat (Service 2022a, entire), Chowanoke
crayfish (Service 2022b, entire), Cisco milkvetch, stage station
milkvetch, and Isely's milkvetch (Service 2022c, entire), Columbia
Oregonian (Service 2022d, entire), and Rye Cove cave isopod (Service
2022e, entire). Each SSA contains a thorough review of the taxonomy,
life history, ecology, current status, and projected future status for
each species. This supporting information can be found on the internet
at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under the appropriate docket number (see
ADDRESSES, above).
Bone Cave Harvestman
Previous Federal Actions
The Bone Cave harvestman was originally listed as endangered as the
Bee Creek Cave harvestman (Texella reddelli) on September 16, 1988 (53
FR 36029). The species was subsequently reclassified into two species,
and on August 18, 1993, we listed the Bone Cave harvestman (Texella
reyesi) as a separate species under the Act (58 FR 43818). This 1993
technical correction ensured that the Bone Cave harvestman continued to
be listed under the Act. On December 4, 2009, we completed a 5-year
review of the Bone Cave harvestman, which recommended that the species
remain listed as endangered (Service 2009).
On June 2, 2014, we received a petition dated June 2, 2014, from
John Yearwood, Kathryn Heidemann, Charles and Cheryl Shell, the Walter
Sidney Shell Management Trust, the American Stewards of Liberty, and
Steven W. Carothers requesting that the endangered Bone Cave harvestman
be delisted due to recovery and error in information. The petition
clearly identified itself as a petition and included the requisite
identification information for the petitioners, as required at that
time by 50 CFR 424.14(a). We evaluated this petition under the 50 CFR
424.14 requirements that were in effect at the time we received the
petition, and on June 1, 2015 (80 FR 30990), we published an initial
90-day finding that the petition did not present substantial scientific
or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be
warranted.
Following litigation in 2016 and 2017, we published a 90-day
finding in the Federal Register on October 10, 2019 (84 FR 54542), that
the petition presented substantial scientific or commercial information
indicating that delisting the Bone Cave harvestman may be warranted.
Previous Federal actions and the history of relevant lawsuits and court
decisions can be found in the 2019 90-day finding (84 FR 54542; October
10, 2019). The regulations at 50 CFR 424.14(h)(2)(i) require that we
publish not-warranted 12-month findings in the Federal Register, and
this document constitutes our 12-month finding for Bone Cave harvestman
in response to the 2014 petition and 2019 90-day finding.
[[Page 80083]]
Summary of Finding
The Bone Cave harvestman is an arachnid that occurs only in
subterranean habitats of the Balcones Canyonlands in portions of Travis
and Williamson Counties, Texas. The Balcones Canyonlands ecoregion
forms the eastern to southeastern boundary of the Edwards Plateau,
where the activity of rivers, springs, and streams has produced an
extensive karst landscape of canyons, caves, and sinkholes. Bone Cave
harvestmen spend their entire lives underground within voids of varying
sizes--from caves to smaller diameter mesocaverns that are inaccessible
by humans. Preliminary genetic results on the variation among Bone Cave
harvestman specimens from across the range of the species indicate at
least three genetic clades exist, generally corresponding to the
northern, central, and southern part of the species' range, with a
potential for at least two more clades. These results indicate the
species' ability to adapt to environmental changes (i.e.,
representation) but are not indicative of a separate species. More
research would be necessary to understand whether these potential
divergences coincide with morphological diversity and to understand
whether the genetic variation is suggestive of further speciation
(Hedin and Derkarabetian 2020, pp. 12, 16-17).
Bone Cave harvestman populations require subterranean habitats with
high humidity and stable temperatures. Intact networks of subterranean
voids provide living space and a buffer or refugia from the effects of
humidity and temperature extremes. Functional surface and subsurface
drainage basins supply water that aids in the maintenance of high
relative humidity. The Bone Cave harvestman also requires a source of
food in the form of invertebrates or other organic matter. The majority
of nutrients that support cave ecosystems originate from surface
habitats, specifically the natural communities that overlay these
systems. Nutrients may include animal or plant material washed in by
water, blown by wind, or transported by animals.
The stressors that may influence the overall viability of the Bone
Cave harvestman are habitat destruction, degradation, and fragmentation
that results from urban, suburban, and exurban development (i.e.,
``human development'' Factor A). The species' range in Travis and
Williamson Counties has experienced substantial human population growth
and development. During the period from 1980 to 2010, the Austin-Round
Rock area was among the fastest growing metropolitan areas in the
United States. Within that same timespan, Williamson County was the
seventh fastest growing exurban/emerging suburban county nationally. In
2019, the Austin-Round Rock-Georgetown area was rated as the eighth
fastest growing metropolitan area in the United States (U.S. Census
Bureau 2019a).
Development in the areas surrounding currently suitable sites
reduces Bone Cave harvestman population resiliency. Smaller areas of
open space are more vulnerable to edge effects, may contain reduced
cave cricket populations, are more susceptible to contamination events
or an altered hydrological regime, and are potentially unable to
sustain native plant community composition over the long term.
To assess the current conditions of Bone Cave harvestman
populations across their range, we also evaluated redundancy and
representation in addition to resiliency. The Bone Cave harvestman
occurs in all or portions of six of the currently delineated karst
fauna regions in Travis and Williamson Counties. From north to south,
these regions are the North Williamson County, Georgetown, McNeil/Round
Rock, East Cedar Park, Jollyville Plateau, and Central Austin Karst
Fauna Regions (Service 1994, p. 33; Veni and Jones 2021, pp. 24, 40).
The McNeil/Round Rock Karst Fauna Region, roughly in the center of the
species' range, currently lacks any protected high- or moderate-
resiliency sites that provide redundancy or representation for that
region. Widespread urbanization has resulted in the loss of all high-
to moderate-resiliency sites in the Cedar Park and Central Austin Karst
Fauna Regions. Protection of representative sites within each of the
occupied karst fauna regions is important given the north-to-south
morphological variation in Bone Cave harvestman populations, the
presence of at least three genetic clades, and the variety of
ecological conditions present at each cave site throughout the range.
We forecasted future resiliency, redundancy, and representation for
the Bone Cave harvestman in each occupied karst fauna region under two
potential scenarios. The scenarios evaluated two levels of conservation
effort. Under Scenario 1, we assume that future conservation efforts to
acquire, protect and manage currently known, unprotected cave clusters
and individual caves continues as in the past and some additional
protected areas are established. Under Scenario 2, we assume that there
is no additional conservation effort to protect and manage currently
known, unprotected cave clusters and individual caves and no additional
protected areas are established.
These scenarios forecast viability of the species from the present
to the year 2050 because this date encompasses the timeframe for which
we have the longest reliable projection of human population growth in
Travis and Williamson Counties. As noted earlier, human population
growth and associated development is projected to be the factor most
likely to impact the viability of this species.
Forecasts of future resiliency, redundancy, and representation
underscore the critical role that adequate habitat protection will play
in securing long-term persistence of Bone Cave harvestman populations.
Economic demand for converting natural open space to development is
high in the Austin-Round Rock-Georgetown metropolitan area, and that
demand is only expected to increase in response to a growing human
population, limiting the potential for conserving existing unprotected
high- or moderate-resiliency sites.
Our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information regarding the past, present, and future threats to the
species indicates that the Bone Cave harvestman is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range and
meets the definition of an endangered species under the Act. The
species currently occurs in 77 extant Bone Cave harvestman cave
clusters and individual cave sites. Our analysis shows that 38 of those
sites are classified as having low or impaired resiliency. These sites
have reduced or insufficient open space and are generally directly
adjacent to human development. The remaining 39 sites are located on
larger tracts of open space that have increasing risk of impacts due to
human development surrounding these sites. These latter sites are
scattered and sometimes isolated, and only four have permanent
protections. The center of the species' range, represented by the
McNeil/Round Rock, East Cedar Park, and Central Austin Karst Fauna
Regions, currently lacks any protected high- to moderate-resiliency
sites.
The primary stressor and reason for past loss, human development,
is continuing currently and will continue into the future. Ongoing
human population growth and its associated development activities
throughout the species' range have resulted in habitat loss that has
been impacting the Bone Cave harvestman for decades. The rate of such
development has increased in recent years and is expected to further
[[Page 80084]]
accelerate in both the near term and the foreseeable future, which we
projected out to 2050 in the SSA. The impacts to Bone Cave harvestman
from this development activity are uniform throughout the range of the
species and include severe, immediate, and often irreversible
destruction, degradation, and fragmentation of existing limited
habitat. These development activities have also facilitated the
introduction of nonnative species such as the red imported fire ant,
which negatively impacts the nutrient availability at Bone Cave
harvestman sites.
These factors, combined with the narrowly restricted range and the
loss of redundancy and genetic representation across the range, have
acted together to reduce the overall viability of the species.
Therefore, we find that the Bone Cave harvestman should remain listed
as an endangered species under the Act, and the petitioned action is
not warranted at this time. A detailed discussion of the basis for this
finding can be found in the Bone Cave harvestman species assessment
form and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
Brandegee's Buckwheat
Previous Federal Actions
In July 2007, the Service received a petition from Forest Guardians
(now WildEarth Guardians) requesting that the Service list 206 species,
including Brandegee's buckwheat (Eriogonum brandegeei Rydberg) (Forest
Guardians 2007, p. 36). In response to this petition, the Service
published a 90-day finding for Brandegee's buckwheat in 2009,
concluding that the petition presented substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that the listing of Brandegee's
buckwheat may be warranted (74 FR 41649; August 18, 2009). The
regulations at 50 CFR 424.14(h)(2)(i) require that we publish not-
warranted 12-month findings in the Federal Register, and this document
constitutes our 12-month finding for Brandegee's buckwheat in response
to the 2007 petition and 2009 90-day finding.
Summary of Finding
Brandegee's buckwheat is a narrow endemic plant species that is a
long-lived, hardy perennial. It is only known to occur in Chaffee and
Fremont Counties in south-central Colorado and currently occupies
approximately 846 acres (342 hectares). The species occurs in two
distinct areas separated by more than 60 miles (97 kilometers).
Brandegee's buckwheat is found on barren outcrops of the Dry Union
and Morrison formations within open sagebrush and pinyon-juniper
communities. Brandegee's buckwheat requires barren bentonite soils from
the Dry Union or Morrison Formation, adequate precipitation or other
water source, low plant cover, sufficient pollinators, and adequate
nutrients. Resilient analysis units (AUs) also contain enough
individuals across each life stage (seed, seedling, and mature
reproductive adult) to bounce back after experiencing environmental
stressors such as intermediate disturbance from recreational use or
occasional drought. Brandegee's buckwheat redundancy is influenced by
the number of AUs across the landscape. More AUs across its range
increase the species' ability to withstand catastrophic events.
Individuals and AUs inhabiting diverse ecological settings and
exhibiting genetic or phenological variation add to the level of
representation across the species' range. The greater the diversity
observed in Brandegee's buckwheat genetics, habitats, and morphology,
the more likely it is to be able to adapt to change over time.
We carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to Brandegee's buckwheat, and we evaluated all relevant stressors under
the five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and
conservation measures addressing these stressors. The primary stressors
with the potential to affect Brandegee's buckwheat's biological status
are recreation (Factor A), development (Factor A), and climate change
(Factor E). We conducted an evaluation of the environmental conditions
that negatively affect individuals or populations of Brandegee's
buckwheat, as well as conservation efforts that ameliorate those
stressors. Currently, all AUs of Brandegee's buckwheat have high levels
of resiliency. The species occurs in two genetically distinct AUs in
unique climatic zones separated by more than 60 miles, contributing to
its current redundancy and representation. In all future scenarios we
considered, the AUs maintain high or moderate resiliency (with the
exception of one subunit under one out of three scenarios) into the
foreseeable future (i.e., 30 years into the future). While redundancy
could decrease slightly in the future, commensurate with decreases in
resiliency, we expect all AUs to remain extant, maintaining the
species' ability to withstand catastrophic events, given the separation
between AUs and the low likelihood of a catastrophe affecting both
areas simultaneously. Further, the species' high genetic variation and
ecological differences between the AUs will be maintained in the
future, sustaining the species' ability to adapt to future change.
We also evaluated whether there are any significant portions of the
range that could be in danger of extinction now or in the foreseeable
future (see Service 2022a, entire). While the Southern Salida subunit
is projected to have lower resiliency than the other two subunits in
future Scenario 3, we do not find that the species is likely to become
in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future in this portion of
the range. Despite the increased stressors in this future scenario, 87
percent of this subunit is Federal land, where BLM manages Brandegee's
buckwheat as a sensitive species, aiming to reduce or mitigate the
effects of stressors on the species. Moreover, we have observed thus
far that Brandegee's plants can survive extremely close to recreational
areas; they have a natural resiliency to the effects of this stressor,
as long as off-highway vehicle users are not directly riding over the
plants. In addition, we found that the conditions in Scenario 3, while
plausible, are less likely than other future scenarios. Moreover, in
the other two future scenarios, the resiliency of this subunit remains
high or moderate, with moderate soil condition and relatively stable
growth rates. Given the low likelihood of this scenario, and the fact
that resiliency is moderate to high under the two more likely
scenarios, we do not find that Brandegee's buckwheat is likely to
become endangered in this portion of the species' range in the
foreseeable future.
Therefore, we find that listing Brandegee's buckwheat as an
endangered species or threatened species under the Act is not
warranted. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be
found in the Brandegee's buckwheat species assessment form and other
supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
Chowanoke Crayfish
Previous Federal Actions
On November 21, 1991, Chowanoke crayfish (Faxonius virginiensis)
was identified as a category 2 candidate species by the Service under
the Act (56 FR 58804). A subsequent candidate notice of review (CNOR)
in 1994 (59 FR 58982; November 15, 1994) maintained the Chowanoke
crayfish as a category 2 species. However, after the publication of the
Service's February 28, 1996, CNOR (61 FR 7596), which revised the
[[Page 80085]]
Service's candidate list to include only Category 1 species, the
Chowanoke crayfish was no longer considered a candidate species. On
April 20, 2010, the Service received a petition from the Center for
Biological Diversity, Alabama Rivers Alliance, Clinch Coalition,
Dogwood Alliance, Gulf Restoration Network, Tennessee Forests Council,
and West Virginia Highlands Conservancy to list 404 aquatic, riparian,
and wetland species, including Chowanoke crayfish, as endangered or
threatened species under the Act. On September 27, 2011, the Service
published a 90-day finding (76 FR 59836) announcing that the petition
presented substantial scientific or commercial information indicating
that listing may be warranted. The regulations at 50 CFR
424.14(h)(2)(i) require that we publish not-warranted 12-month findings
in the Federal Register, and this document constitutes our 12-month
finding for Chowanoke crayfish in response to the 2010 petition and
2011 90-day finding.
Summary of Finding
The Chowanoke crayfish's historical range is the Chowan River basin
in southeastern Virginia and northeastern North Carolina, and the
Roanoke River basin in northcentral and northeastern North Carolina.
The historical range of the Chowanoke crayfish included documented
distribution in six analysis units (AUs) within the two populations
(i.e., basins). The Chowanoke crayfish is currently extant in all 6 AUs
and occupies 86 percent (24 of 28) of the historically occupied
Hydrologic Unit Code 10 (HUC10) watersheds, which are evenly
distributed within AUs and both populations.
The Chowanoke crayfish is a small, freshwater, tertiary burrowing
crustacean native to the Chowan and Roanoke River basins in Virginia
and North Carolina. The species occurs in perennial streams and rivers
with moderate to high gradient and flow, with rocky substrate, woody
debris, and/or vegetation for shelter, that likely burrows only during
the breeding season and/or during drought conditions. The species'
needs are unembedded coarse hard structure (boulder, cobble, and
gravel), woody debris, leaf litter, undercut banks, and/or abandoned
crayfish burrows for breeding, sheltering, and feeding; perennial
streams that are third order or greater; sufficient water quantity (not
stagnant) with noticeable current to maintain habitat and water
quality; sufficient water quality consisting of freshwater, low levels
of silt, sand, and turbidity to promote food sources and resistance to
nonnative, invasive species and disease; and habitat connectivity for
individuals to access adequate shelter, food, and space and to move to
suitable habitat and climate over time. The species is assumed to be an
opportunistic omnivore feeding on a wide variety of items including
aquatic and terrestrial vegetation, plant detritus, insects, snails,
and small aquatic vertebrates. Most of the occupied streams and rivers
are non-tidal and freshwater, except for near the mouth of the Roanoke
River and Chowan River in North Carolina. The occurrence of Chowanoke
crayfish near the river mouth suggest that they have some tolerance to
infrequent low-salinity conditions.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the Chowanoke crayfish, and we evaluated all relevant factors under
the five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and
conservation measures addressing these stressors. The primary threats
with the potential to affect the Chowanoke crayfish's biological status
include land use modification (Factor A), climate change (Factor E),
and nonnative crayfish (Factors C and E). The species currently has
high resiliency, representation, and redundancy. The effects of land
use change and climate change have likely begun to occur in minor
portions of the current Chowanoke range and may have contributed to
some habitat degradation. However, these threats appear to have low
imminence and magnitude, and the current risk of extinction is low.
Therefore, after assessing the best available information, we conclude
that the Chowanoke crayfish is not in danger of extinction throughout
all of its range and does not meet the definition of an endangered
species.
As for determining whether the species may be threatened, we have
little scientific information that informs the species' likely response
to changes related to sea level rise and the spread of nonnative
crayfish; however, based on the best available information, we do not
expect changes from climate change or nonnative crayfish to be primary
stressors affecting the species' viability. Even with the impacts of
increased salinity, the species has sufficient healthy populations
distributed across the range such that the species is not in danger of
extinction in the foreseeable future, which we determined to be 50
years. Because negative impacts of nonnative crayfish on Chowanoke
crayfish have not been documented, it was not considered as an active
threat in the analysis. Based on current and projected habitat
conditions and population factors for two future scenarios (1 and 3),
estimates of current and future resiliency for Chowanoke crayfish are
high to moderate in all the AUs and Chowan and Roanoke populations, as
are estimates for redundancy and representation at the end of 50 years
(Service 2022b, entire). For scenario 2, the Middle Roanoke AU in the
Roanoke population is predicted to be likely extirpated, but the other
five AUs in the Chowan and Roanoke populations will be in moderate or
high condition, thus maintaining resiliency for five (83 percent)
subpopulations. Redundancy is predicted to be reduced, but still at a
moderate level across the range, with 68 percent of the HUC10
watersheds occupied (Service 2022b, entire). After assessing the best
available information, we conclude that Chowanoke crayfish is not
likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout
all of its range.
We found no biologically meaningful portion of the Chowanoke
crayfish range where threats are impacting individuals differently from
how they are affecting the species elsewhere in its range, or where the
condition of the species differs from its condition elsewhere in its
range such that the status of the species in that portion differs from
any other portion of the species' range. Thus, after assessing the best
available information, we determine that Chowanoke crayfish is not in
danger of extinction now or likely to become so within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Therefore,
we find that listing the Chowanoke crayfish as an endangered species or
threatened species under the Act is not warranted. A detailed
discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the Chowanoke
crayfish species assessment form and other supporting documents (see
ADDRESSES, above).
Cisco Milkvetch, Stage Station Milkvetch, and Isely's Milkvetch
Previous Federal Actions
On July 30, 2007, we received a petition dated July 24, 2007, from
Forest Guardians (now WildEarth Guardians) to list 206 species in the
mountain-prairie region of the United States, including Cisco milkvetch
(Astragalus sabulosus) and Isely's milkvetch (A. iselyi), as endangered
or threatened species under the Act. We completed a 90-day finding on
August 18, 2009 (74 FR 41649; correction on September 14, 2009, 74 FR
46965), in which we
[[Page 80086]]
announced our finding that the petition contained substantial
information that listing may be warranted for numerous species,
including Cisco milkvetch and Isely's milkvetch. There are no previous
Federal actions for stage station milkvetch because stage station
milkvetch was only recently (in 2015) identified as being a separate
species from Cisco milkvetch. The regulations at 50 CFR 424.14(h)(2)(i)
require that we publish not-warranted 12-month findings in the Federal
Register, and this document constitutes our 12-month finding for the
Cisco milkvetch and Isely's milkvetch in response to the 2007 petition
and our 2009 90-day finding. This document also constitutes the
notification of review for the stage station milkvetch, indicating
under Sec. 424.15(b) that there is not sufficient scientific or
commercial information available to warrant proposing to list.
Summary of Findings
Cisco milkvetch, stage station milkvetch, and Isely's milkvetch are
perennial flowering plants found in southeast Utah in Grand and San
Juan Counties. As narrow endemics, there have likely always been
relatively few populations of these species within a narrow range.
Based on the best available information, the current distribution of
the species is similar to its historical distribution.
Cisco milkvetch, stage station milkvetch, and Isely's milkvetch
appear to be narrowly restricted to specific environmental conditions,
including open, sparsely vegetated areas with little competition from
other plants, and they have only been observed growing in selenium-rich
soils. Although these species require sufficient seasonal precipitation
for seed germination, seedling emergence, vegetative plant growth,
flowering, and fruit set, specific suitable microsite characteristics
are also unknown.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the Cisco, stage station, and Isely's milkvetches, and we evaluated
all relevant factors under the five listing factors, including any
regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures addressing these
threats. The primary threats with the potential to affect the Cisco,
stage station, and Isely's milkvetches' biological status include
recreation (Factor B); oil and gas development (Factor A); land
development and conversion (Factor A); major energy and transportation
corridor (Factor A); nonnative, invasive species (Factors C and E); and
the effects of drought and climate change (Factor E), as well as mining
of mineral resources for stage station and Isely's milkvetches (Factor
A).
Our assessment of current viability included all primary threats to
Cisco, stage station, and Isely's milkvetch. Despite past and ongoing
stressors, Cisco and Isely's milkvetch have multiple, healthy
populations (high and medium condition), and stage station milkvetch
has maintained the only historically known population in a moderate
condition. To assess future viability of these species, we considered
the foreseeable future out to 2050 and projected the influence of three
future scenarios that included climate change and the other primary
threats included in the assessment of current viability. Within the SSA
for the three species (Service 2022c, entire), we evaluated the
viability of each of the three milkvetches, including a review of
ongoing and future threats. Concurrent with the development of the SSA,
with partners, we developed a Conservation Agreement and Strategy
(Agreement) for the Cisco, stage station, and Isely's milkvetches (BLM
et al. 2022, entire) to address the ongoing and future threats
identified in the SSA. We conducted an analysis of the Agreement under
the Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts (68 FR 15100; March
28, 2003); based on our findings that the Agreement has a high level of
certainty of future implementation and certainty of the effectiveness,
we were able to consider the Agreement as part of the basis for our 12-
month finding for Cisco and Isely's milkvetches and our discretionary
status assessment for the stage station milkvetch.
As part of our future viability assessment, we also considered the
implementation of the Agreement and projected that it will mitigate or
reduce non-climate-related threats in the foreseeable future. The best
available information indicates that these species have life-history
traits conducive to surviving periodic drought and hot summers similar
to projected conditions resulting from climate change. Additionally,
the implementation of the Agreement will mitigate or reduce non-
climate-related stressors and reduce the potential cumulative
interaction of climate change with non-climate-related stressors.
Therefore, the three species are expected to maintain levels of
resiliency, redundancy, and representation that are similar to current
conditions, and most populations of Cisco and Isely's milkvetches and
the only known population of stage station milkvetch appear
sufficiently robust and are not likely to change significantly in the
foreseeable future. No significant portions of the range of any of
these three species are in danger of extinction or likely to become so
in the foreseeable future.
After assessing the best available information, we conclude that
the Cisco milkvetch, stage station milkvetch, and Isely's milkvetch are
not in danger of extinction or likely to become in danger of extinction
throughout all of their range or in any significant portion of their
range. Therefore, we find that listing the Cisco milkvetch, stage
station milkvetch, and Isely's milkvetch as endangered species or
threatened species under the Act is not warranted. A detailed
discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the Cisco
milkvetch, stage station milkvetch, and Isely's milkvetch species
assessment forms and supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
Columbia Oregonian
Previous Federal Actions
On March 17, 2008, the Service received a petition from the Center
for Biological Diversity, Conservation Northwest, the Environmental
Protection Information Center, the Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center,
and Oregon Wild, requesting that the Service list 32 species and
subspecies of mollusks in the Pacific Northwest, including the Columbia
Oregonian (Cryptomastix hendersoni), as endangered or threatened under
the Act. The petition also requested that the Service designate
critical habitat concurrent with listing. On October 5, 2011, the
Service found in our 90-day finding that the petition presented
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that
listing the Columbia Oregonian may be warranted (76 FR 61826). The
regulations at 50 CFR 424.14(h)(2)(i) require that we publish not-
warranted 12-month findings in the Federal Register, and this document
constitutes our 12-month finding for Columbia Oregonian in response to
the 2008 petition and 2011 90-day finding.
Summary of Finding
The Columbia Oregonian is a small terrestrial gastropod (snail)
associated with riparian habitat found along the moist edges of seeps,
springs, and streams. It is known historically from locations near The
Dalles, Oregon, with a few occurrences near Walla Walla and Yakima in
the State of Washington, as well as in west-central Idaho. Its current
range includes additional areas along the Columbia River corridor, into
the Blue Mountains of northeast Oregon,
[[Page 80087]]
along Hells Canyon in western Idaho and in northern Idaho, and
locations west of Yakima, Washington, in the Snoqualmie National
Forest.
The Columbia Oregonian occurs on talus slopes (especially near the
base where moisture levels tend to be higher) along the margins of
seeps and spring-fed streams in low- to middle-elevation areas (average
78 meters) of major river drainages (Jordan and Black 2015, p. 13). In
Idaho, specimens have also been reported in habitats outside riparian
areas at higher elevations in conifer-dominated forests (Idaho
Department of Fish and Game 2021, p. 3). The Columbia Oregonian is an
air-breathing (or pulmonate) gastropod that reproduces both sexually
and asexually, and lays eggs that hatch after approximately 1 month
(Frest and Johannes 1995, p. 25). While the specific life-history needs
of the Columbia Oregonian have not been documented, sources describe
Cryptomastix spp. as requiring habitat containing adequate soil
moisture and appropriate soil chemistry, sources of refugia, and
moderate air temperatures, and a diet consisting of various plant
material, microorganisms, algae, and other organic matter found at the
edge of streams and seeps for nutrition (Jordan and Black 2015, p. 10).
We carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the Columbia Oregonian, and we evaluated all relevant factors under
the five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and
conservation measures addressing these stressors. The primary stressors
with the potential to affect the Columbia Oregonian's biological status
include habitat loss and fragmentation due to livestock grazing and
riparian habitat conversion (Factor A), and the climate-mediated risk
of drought and wildfire (Factor E).
Currently, the species occurs in 19 resiliency units (delineated
from 32 occurrence records), the majority of which are currently in
moderate to high condition, with only one unit currently in low
condition. These resiliency units are distributed across the historical
range of the species and occupy a diversity of ecological settings.
Thus, we determined that the species is not in danger of extinction
throughout all of its range.
To assess whether the species is in danger of extinction in the
foreseeable future, we considered three plausible future scenarios that
projected changes in livestock grazing, riparian habitat conversion,
the risk of drought and wildfire as influenced by climate change, and
how these threats would impact Columbia Oregonian habitat and
population connectivity. For the purposes of this analysis, we
considered the foreseeable future to be the timeframe from the present
to about mid-century (or to 2069, given available data sets), as that
is the timeframe for which we can reasonably determine likely future
changes in climate that influence two of the four major threats we
analyzed for the Columbia Oregonian (wildfire and drought), and the
species' responses to these changes.
We determined that these threats are likely to reduce resiliency to
a modest degree in two of the three future scenarios we considered,
thereby having the potential to also modestly reduce redundancy and
representation (through reduced abundance or the loss of populations
and/or occupied representation units). However, even in the highest
threat impact future scenario, more than half of the resiliency units
would continue to occur in moderate to high condition, and only 3 of
the 19 resiliency units would decline to low or very low condition.
Extirpation of low-condition populations is possible in this highest
threat impact future scenario, but even in this scenario, multiple
moderate- to high-condition populations would remain across most or all
of the historical and current range of the species. Therefore, our
analysis indicates that even with the projected decline in habitat
quality, and by proxy the decline in the species' condition, the
Columbia Oregonian will maintain adequate levels of resiliency across
most populations, and adequate redundancy and representation rangewide,
to maintain species viability into the foreseeable future.
In considering the significant portion of its range, we found no
biologically meaningful portion of the Columbia Oregonian range where
threats are impacting individuals differently from how they are
affecting the species elsewhere in its range, or where the condition of
the species differs from its condition elsewhere in its range such that
the status of the species in that portion differs from any other
portion of the species' range. The Weiser resiliency unit is currently
in low condition and is projected to remain low in future scenarios.
Given this, we consider the Weiser resiliency unit to have different
status than the remainder of the range. However, we found that the unit
does not represent a significant portion of the species' range. The
only known occurrence in the larger Weiser watershed unit is based on a
single historical record of a dead individual Columbia Oregonian that
was collected in 1991. Therefore, the best available information does
not indicate that the Weiser resiliency unit represents a part of the
species' range that hosts a particularly high concentration of
individuals, nor does it represent a particularly large area
proportional to the rest of the species' range (the Weiser resiliency
unit comprises 5 percent of the total area made up by the 19 resiliency
units). For these reasons, we conclude that Weiser is not a significant
portion of the range. Therefore, we find that listing the Columbia
Oregonian as an endangered species or threatened species under the Act
is not warranted. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding
can be found in the Columbia Oregonian species assessment form and
other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
Rye Cove Cave Isopod
Previous Federal Actions
On April 20, 2010, the Service received a petition from the Center
for Biological Diversity, Alabama Rivers Alliance, Clinch Coalition,
Dogwood Alliance, Gulf Restoration Network, Tennessee Forests Council,
and West Virginia Highlands Conservancy to list 404 aquatic, riparian,
and wetland species, including Rye Cove cave isopod (Lirceus culveriI),
as endangered or threatened species under the Act (see Center for
Biological Diversity 2010, pp. 1-66, 192-193). On September 27, 2011,
the Service published a 90-day finding in the Federal Register (76 FR
59836) announcing that the petition presented substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that listing may be warranted. The
regulations at 50 CFR 424.14(h)(2)(i) require that we publish not-
warranted 12-month findings in the Federal Register, and this document
constitutes our 12-month finding for Rye Cove cave isopod in response
to the 2010 petition and 2011 90-day finding.
Summary of Finding
The Rye Cove cave isopod occupies a small range of approximately 14
kilometers (8.7 miles) of cave streams fed by a drainage area of
approximately 19 square kilometers (7.3 square miles) within the Rye
Cove area of Scott County in southwestern Virginia. The Rye Cove area
is a trough within the Appalachian Valley, bound by Big Ridge to the
south and Cove Ridge to the north; the floor of the cove is about 500
feet (152 meters) lower than the surrounding ridges, which exceed 2,000
feet (610 meters). The Rye Cove cave isopod is now known to inhabit two
distinct, adjacent karst drainages within
[[Page 80088]]
a single moderately sized spring basin. One drainage contains six
caves, while the second contains two caves. All the streams and caves
appear to eventually emerge aboveground over 1 mile east and 200 feet
(61 meters) lower than the Rye Cove valley floor at a spring.
The Rye Cove cave isopod is an eyeless, unpigmented troglobitic
species of isopod and is a crustacean with a rigid, segmented
exoskeleton. Isopods also have two pairs of antennae, seven pairs of
jointed limbs on the thorax, and five pairs of branching appendages
(pleopods) on the abdomen that are used in swimming and for
respiration. Rye Cove cave isopods require suitable substrate within
the cave streams where clean water with adequate depth flows through
riffles that help oxygenate the water. Streams must carry organic
detritus on which the isopod can feed. However, excess nutrients allow
surface organisms without troglomorphic (cave-adapted) characteristics
to regularly survive in the cave environment. Thus, nutrient inputs
should not be so high that surface-adapted organisms regularly occur
and potentially outcompete the Rye Cove cave isopod, or that degrade
water quality and the overall habitat conditions. The range of
temperatures in which the isopod will thrive/survive is likely
dependent on the average stream temperature in the cave and seasonal
fluctuations.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the Rye Cove cave isopod, and we evaluated all relevant factors
under the five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and
conservation measures addressing these stressors. The Rye Cove cave
isopod inherently has low redundancy and representation due to its
being a narrow-ranging endemic. Survey data indicate that the species
resiliency has remained unchanged over the years. The primary threats
with the potential to affect the Rye Cove cave isopod's biological
status include the effects of climate change (Factor E), land use and
management (Factor A), and the risk of catastrophic events (Factor E).
Based on the best available information, we conclude that major impacts
from climate change in the foreseeable future (2040 to 2070) are
unlikely. While little is known about the ecology of the genus Lirceus,
the Rye Cove cave isopod has existed through climate variations,
including both temperature and water quantity (drought conditions,
flood conditions), given molecular evidence that points to a timeframe
of millions of years since the Rye Cove cave isopod diverged from its
closest relative.
The effects of land use and management have likely begun to occur
in the current range of the Rye Cove cave isopod and may have
contributed to some habitat degradation. However, these threats appear
to have low imminence and magnitude such that they are not affecting
the species' ability to maintain populations within its range. The Rye
Cove cave isopod has the best viability into the future with zero to
low land use changes. Intense future land uses (animal feeding
operations, dairy farms, suburban neighborhoods) in Rye Cove are
unlikely; trends and models do not predict major land use changes, and
the terrain and access in Rye Cove may hinder this sort of development.
While the risk of a catastrophic event occurring increases with an
increase in the risk factors, all of these risk factors are projected
to remain low or decrease based on the geographic location, census, and
modeling of human population growth and development in Rye Cove. And,
while the Rye Cove cave isopod is at particular risk of catastrophic
impacts due to its linear habitat, limited dispersal capabilities, and
assumed sensitivity to contaminants, the cave streams likely also
contain unmapped blind tributaries and refugia, as well as stream
habitat connectivity to provide protection and re-population
opportunities if a catastrophic event occurred. Finally, in considering
the significant portion of its range, we found no biologically
meaningful portion of the Rye Cove cave isopod range where threats are
impacting individuals differently from how they are affecting the
species elsewhere in its range, or where the condition of the species
differs from its condition elsewhere in its range such that the status
of the species in that portion differs from any other portion of the
species' range.
After assessing the best available information, we concluded that
the Rye Cove cave isopod is not in danger of extinction or likely to
become in danger of extinction throughout all of its range or in any
significant portion of its range. Therefore, we find that listing the
Rye Cove cave isopod as an endangered species or threatened species
under the Act is not warranted. A detailed discussion of the basis for
this finding can be found in the Rye Cove cave isopod species
assessment form and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
References Cited
A list of the references cited in this petition finding is
available in the relevant species assessment form, which is available
on the internet at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> in the appropriate
docket (see ADDRESSES, above) and upon request from the appropriate
person (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above).
Authors
The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the
Species Assessment Team, Ecological Services Program.
Authority
The authority for this action is section 4 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-28233 Filed 12-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on December 29, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.