[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 [www.gpo.gov]
[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 https://www.regulations.gov 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,
                                [email protected], 512-490-0057.
Brandegee's buckwheat........  Liisa Niva, Eastern Colorado Supervisor,
                                Colorado Field Office,
                                [email protected], 303-436-4773.
Chowanoke crayfish, Rye Cove   Cindy Shulz, Field Supervisor, Virginia
 cave isopod.                   Field Office, [email protected], 804-
                                693-6694.
Cisco milkvetch, Stage         Yvette Converse, Field Supervisor, Utah
 station milkvetch, Isely's     Ecological Services Field Office,
 milkvetch.                     [email protected], 801-975-3330.
Columbia Oregonian...........  Craig Rowland, Deputy State Supervisor,
                                Portland, Oregon Regional Office,
                                [email protected], 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 https://www.regulations.gov 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 https://www.regulations.gov 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 https://www.regulations.gov 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