Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 3 / Thursday, January 4, 2018 / Proposed Rules 475 

1We define conservation-reliant species in this 

case as those that have generally met recovery 

criteria but require continued active management to 

sustain the species and associated habitat in a 

recovered condition. 

not any other pending proposals that 

USDA has issued or is considering. The 

Department notes that withdrawal of a 

proposal does not necessarily mean that 

the preamble statement of the proposal 

no longer reflects the current position of 

USDA on the matter addressed. You 

may wish to review the Department’s 

website (http://www.USDA.gov) for any 

current guidance on these matter 

matters. 

Dated: December 26, 2017. 

Rebeckah Adcock, 

Regulatory Reform Officer and Senior Advisor 

to the Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2017–28433 Filed 1–3–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–90–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2017–0051; 

FXES11130900000–178–FF09E42000] 

RIN 1018–BC09 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Removing the Foskett 

Speckled Dace From the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of 

draft post-delisting monitoring plan. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS), 

propose to remove the Foskett speckled 

dace (Rhinichthys osculus ssp.), a fish 

native to Oregon, from the Federal List 

of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

on the basis of recovery. This 

determination is based on a review of 

the best available scientific and 

commercial information, which 

indicates that the threats to the Foskett 

speckled dace have been eliminated or 

reduced to the point where it no longer 

meets the definition of an endangered or 

threatened species under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). We are seeking 

information and comments from the 

public regarding this proposed rule and 

the draft post-delisting monitoring plan 

for the Foskett speckled dace. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

March 5, 2018. Please note that if you 

are using the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal (see ADDRESSES), the deadline for 

submitting an electronic comment is 

11:59 p.m. Eastern time on this date. We 

must receive requests for public 

hearings, in writing, at the address 

shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT by February 20, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter FWS–R1–ES–2017–0051, which is 

the docket number for this rulemaking. 

Then click on the Search button. On the 

resulting page, in the Search panel on 

the left side of the screen, under the 

Document Type heading, click on the 

Proposed Rules link to locate this 

document. You may submit a comment 

by clicking on ‘‘Comment Now!’’ 

(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

or hand-delivery to: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: Docket No. FWS–R1– 

ES–2017–0051, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, 

Falls Church, VA 22041–3803. 

We request that you send comments 

only by the methods described above. 

We will post all comments on http://

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see 

Information Requested, below, for more 

information). 

Document availability: This proposed 

rule and a copy of the draft postdelisting monitoring (PDM) plan 

referenced throughout this document 

can be viewed at http://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R1–ES–2017–0051, or at the 

Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office’s 

website at https://www.fws.gov/ 

oregonfwo. In addition, the supporting 

file for this proposed rule will be 

available for public inspection by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours, at the Oregon Fish and Wildlife 

Office, 2600 SE 98th Avenue, Suite 100, 

Portland, OR 97226; telephone 503– 

231–6179. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Henson, State Supervisor, 2600 SE 98th 

Avenue, Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266; 

telephone: 503–231–6179; facsimile 

(fax): 503–231–6195. If you use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD), call the Federal Relay Service at 

1–800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Why we need to publish a rule. Under 

the Act, a species may be removed from 

the Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife (List) due to 

recovery. A species is an ‘‘endangered 

species’’ for purposes of the Act if it is 

in danger of extinction throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range and is 

a ‘‘threatened species’’ if it is likely to 

become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range. The 

Act does not define the term 

‘‘foreseeable future.’’ The Foskett 

speckled dace is listed as threatened, 

and we are proposing to delist the 

species (i.e., remove the species from 

the List) because we have determined it 

is not likely to become an endangered 

species now or within the foreseeable 

future. Delistings can only be made by 

issuing a rulemaking. 

The basis for our action. Under the 

Act, we may determine that a species is 

an endangered or threatened species 

because of any one or a combination of 

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. We have determined that the 

Foskett speckled dace is no longer at 

risk of extinction and has exceeded or 

met the following criteria for delisting 

described in the species’ recovery plan: 

(1) Long-term protection of habitat, 

including spring source aquifers, spring 

pools and outflow channels, and 

surrounding lands, is assured; 

(2) Long-term habitat management 

guidelines are developed and 

implemented to ensure the continued 

persistence of important habitat features 

and include monitoring of current 

habitat and investigation for and 

evaluation of new spring habitats; and 

(3) Research into life history, genetics, 

population trends, habitat use and 

preference, and other important 

parameters is conducted to assist in 

further developing and/or refining 

criteria (1) and (2), above. 

As per recovery criterion (2), we 

consider the Foskett speckled dace to be 

a conservation-reliant species 1 (see 

Scott et al. 2010, entire), given that it 

requires active management to maintain 

suitable habitat. To address this 

management need, the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM), the Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(ODFW), and the Service developed and 

are implementing the Foskett Speckled 

Dace (Rhinichthys osculus ssp.) 

Cooperative Management Plan (CMP; 

USFWS et al. 2015), and are committed 


rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
476 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 3 / Thursday, January 4, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

to the continuing long-term 

management of this species. 

Information Requested 

Public Comments 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposal will be 

based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available and be as 

accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, we request comments or 

information from other governmental or 

State agencies, Tribes, the scientific 

community, industry, or other 

interested parties concerning this 

proposed rule. The comments that will 

be most useful and likely to influence 

our decisions are those supported by 

data or peer-reviewed studies and those 

that include citations to, and analyses 

of, applicable laws and regulations. 

Please make your comments as specific 

as possible and explain the basis for 

them. In addition, please include 

sufficient information with your 

comments to allow us to authenticate 

any scientific or commercial data you 

reference or provide. We particularly 

seek comments concerning: 

(1) Reasons why we should or should 

not remove Foskett speckled dace from 

the Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife (i.e., ‘‘delist’’ the 

fish under the Act); 

(2) New biological or other relevant 

data concerning any threat (or lack 

thereof) to this fish (e.g., those 

associated with climate change); 

(3) New information on any efforts by 

the State or other entities to protect or 

otherwise conserve the Foskett speckled 

dace or its habitat; 

(4) New information concerning the 

range, distribution, and population size 

or trends of this fish; 

(5) New information on the current or 

planned activities in the habitat or range 

of the Foskett speckled dace that may 

adversely affect or benefit the fish; and 

(6) Information pertaining to the 

requirements for post-delisting 

monitoring of the Foskett speckled dace. 

Please note that submissions merely 

stating support for or opposition to the 

action under consideration without 

providing supporting information, 

although noted, may not meet the 

standard of information required by 

section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.), which directs that 

determinations as to whether any 

species is an endangered or threatened 

species must be made ‘‘solely on the 

basis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available.’’ 

Prior to issuing a final rule to 

implement this proposed action, we will 

take into consideration all comments 

and any additional information we 

receive. Such information may lead to a 

final rule that differs from this proposal. 

All comments and recommendations, 

including names and addresses, will 

become part of the administrative 

record. 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed in 

ADDRESSES. We will not consider 

comments sent by email, fax, or to an 

address not listed in ADDRESSES. We 

will not consider hand-delivered 

comments that we do not receive, or 

mailed comments that are not 

postmarked by, the date specified in 

DATES. If you submit information via 

http://www.regulations.gov, your entire 

submission—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the website. Please note that 

comments posted to this website are not 

immediately viewable. When you 

submit a comment, the system receives 

it immediately. However, the comment 

will not be publicly viewable until we 

post it, which might not occur until 

several days after submission. 

If you mail or hand-deliver hardcopy 

comments that include personal 

identifying information, you may 

request at the top of your document that 

we withhold this information from 

public review. However, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

To ensure that the electronic docket for 

this rulemaking is complete and all 

comments we receive are publicly 

available, we will post all hardcopy 

submissions on http://

www.regulations.gov. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this proposed rule 

and draft post-delisting monitoring 

(PDM) plan, will be available for public 

inspection on http://

www.regulations.gov, or by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office 

(see Document availability under 

ADDRESSES, above). 

Public Hearing 

Section 4(b)(5)(E) of the Act provides 

for one or more public hearings on this 

proposal, if requested. We must receive 

requests for public hearings, in writing, 

at the address shown in FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT within 45 days 

after the date of this Federal Register 

publication (see DATES, above). We will 

schedule at least one public hearing on 

this proposal, if any are requested, and 

announce the dates, times, and 

location(s) of any hearings, as well as 

how to obtain reasonable 

accommodations, in the Federal 

Register at least 15 days before the first 

hearing. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our policy, 

‘‘Notice of Interagency Cooperative 

Policy for Peer Review in Endangered 

Species Act Activities,’’ which was 

published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34270), we will seek the expert opinion 

of at least three appropriate 

independent specialists regarding this 

proposed rule as well as the draft PDM 

plan. The purpose of peer review is to 

ensure that decisions are based on 

scientifically sound data, assumptions, 

and analyses. These reviews will be 

completed during the public comment 

period. 

We will consider all comments and 

information we receive during the 

comment period on this proposed rule 

as we prepare the final determination. 

Accordingly, the final decision may 

differ from this proposal. 

Background 

Previous Federal Actions 

We published a final rule listing the 

Foskett speckled dace as threatened in 

the Federal Register on March 28, 1985 

(50 FR 12302). This rule also found that 

the designation of critical habitat was 

not prudent because it would increase 

the likelihood of vandalism to the small, 

isolated springs that support this 

species. On April 27, 1998, a recovery 

plan was completed for the Foskett 

speckled dace as well as two other fish 

of the Warner Basin and Alkali 

Subbasin (USFWS 1998). 

On March 25, 2009 (USFWS 2009, 

entire), a 5-year review of the Foskett 

speckled dace status was completed, 

recommending no change in listing 

status. On February 18, 2014, we 

published a notice in the Federal 

Register announcing the initiation of 

5-year status reviews and information 

requests for five species, including the 

Foskett speckled dace (79 FR 9263). No 

information was received from this 

request. The second 5-year review, 

completed on October 26, 2015 (USFWS 

2015, entire), concluded that the status 

of the Foskett speckled dace had 

substantially improved since the time of 

listing according to the definitions of 

‘‘endangered species’’ and ‘‘threatened 

species’’ under the Act and 

recommended that the Foskett speckled 

dace be considered for delisting. 

Species Description 

The Foskett speckled dace 

(Rhinichthys osculus ssp.) is in the 

family Cyprinidae (Girard 1857) and is 


rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 3 / Thursday, January 4, 2018 / Proposed Rules 477 

represented by two populations in Lake 

County, Oregon: A natural population 

that inhabits Foskett Spring on the west 

side of Coleman Lake, and an 

introduced population at Dace Springs 

(USFWS 1998, p. 14). The Foskett 

speckled dace is a small, elongate, 

rounded minnow (4 inches (in) (10 

centimeters (cm)) with a flat belly. The 

snout is moderately pointed, the eyes 

and mouth are small, and ventral 

barbels (i.e., whisker-like sensory organs 

near the mouth) are present. Foskett 

speckled dace have eight dorsal fin rays 

and seven anal fin rays, and the caudal 

fin is moderately forked (USFWS 1998, 

p. 8). The color of its back is dusky to 

dark olive; the sides are grayish green, 

with a dark lateral stripe, often obscured 

by dark speckles or blotches; and the 

fins are plain. Breeding males are 

reddish on the lips and fin bases. 

Life History 

Relatively little is known about the 

biology of the Foskett speckled dace. 

Fish breed at age 1 year, and spawning 

begins in March to April and extends 

into July; individual fish can live for at 

least 4 years (Scheerer et al. 2015, p. 2). 

Length-frequency histograms suggest the 

presence of multiple age classes and 

that successful reproduction occurs 

annually (Sheerer and Jacobs 2009, p. 

5). Young-of-the-year fish are more 

common in the shallow marsh habitats 

(Scheerer et al. 2016, p. 3). Presumably, 

similar to other dace, Foskett speckled 

dace require rock or gravel substrate for 

egg deposition (Sigler and Sigler 1987, 

p. 208). The taxonomy of the Foskett 

speckled dace is summarized in the 

species’ 5-year review (USFWS 2015). 

Distribution 

The Foskett speckled dace is endemic 

to Foskett Spring in the Warner Basin, 

in southeastern Oregon (see Figure 1). 

The historical known natural range of 

the Foskett speckled dace is limited to 

Foskett Spring. At the time of listing in 

1985, Foskett speckled dace also 

occurred at nearby Dace Spring where 

translocation was initiated in 1979 

(Williams et al. 1990, p. 243). 

Foskett speckled dace were probably 

distributed throughout prehistoric 

Coleman Lake (see Figure 1) during 

times that it held substantial amounts of 

water. The timing of the isolation 

between the Warner Lakes and the 

Coleman Lake Subbasin is uncertain 

although it might have been as recent as 

10,000 years ago (Bills 1977, entire). As 

Coleman Lake dried, the salt content of 

the water increased and suitable habitat 

would have been reduced from a large 

lake to spring systems that provided 

adequate freshwater. 

Given that both Foskett and Dace 

springs were historically below the 

surface of Coleman Lake, it is reasonable 

to assume that Foskett speckled dace 

occupied Dace Spring at some point in 

the past although none was documented 

in the 1970s. Beginning in 1979, Foskett 

speckled dace were translocated into the 

then-fishless Dace Spring to attempt to 


rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with PROPOSALSEP04JA18.000</GPH>
478 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 3 / Thursday, January 4, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

create a second population (see 

discussion below, under Abundance). 

Habitat 

Foskett Spring is a small, natural 

spring that rises from a springhead pool 

that flows through a narrow, shallow 

spring brook into a series of shallow 

marshes, and then disappears into the 

soil of the normally dry Coleman Lake 

(Scheerer et al. 2016, p. 1). Foskett 

Spring is a cool-water spring with 

temperatures recorded at a constant 64.8 

degrees Fahrenheit (°F) (18.2 degrees 

Celsius (°C)) (Scheerer and Jacobs 2009, 

p. 5). The spring water is clear, and the 

water flow rate is less than 0.5 cubic feet 

(ft3) per second (0.01 cubic meters (m3) 

per second). The springhead pool has a 

loose sandy bottom and is heavily 

vegetated with aquatic plants. The 

ODFW estimated approximately 864 

square yards (yds2) (722 square meters 

(m2)) of wetland habitat are associated 

with the Foskett Spring area, including 

the spring pool, spring brook, tule 

marsh, cattail marsh, and sedge marsh 

(Scheerer and Jacobs 2005, p. 6; 

hereafter ‘‘marsh’’ unless otherwise 

noted). Foskett speckled dace occur in 

all the wetlands habitats associated with 

the spring. The fish use overhanging 

bank edges, grass, exposed grass roots, 

and filamentous algae as cover. In 1987, 

the BLM acquired the property 

containing both Foskett and Dace 

springs and the surrounding 161 acres 

(ac) (65 hectares (ha)), of which 

approximately 69 ac (28 ha) were fenced 

to exclude cattle from the two springs. 

After fencing and cattle exclusion, 

encroachment by aquatic vegetation 

reduced the open-water habitat (Sheerer 

and Jacobs 2007, p. 9). This is a 

common pattern in desert spring 

ecosystems and has resulted in 

reductions of fish populations at other 

sites (see Kodric-Brown and Brown 

2007). 

In 2005, 2007, and 2009, the ODFW 

considered Foskett speckled dace 

habitat to be in good condition, but 

limited in extent (Scheerer and Jacobs 

2005, p. 7; 2007, p. 9; and 2009, p. 5). 

They noted that encroachment by 

aquatic plants may be limiting the 

population and that a decline in 

abundance of Foskett speckled dace 

since 1997 was probably due to the 

reduction in open-water habitat. Deeper 

water with moderate vegetative cover 

would presumably be better habitat, 

judging from the habitats used by other 

populations of speckled dace, although 

Dambacher et al. (1997, no pagination) 

noted that past habitat management to 

increase open-water habitat has been 

unsuccessful in the long run due to 

sediment infilling and regrowth of 

aquatic plants. To address the 

encroachment by aquatic vegetation, in 

2013, the BLM implemented a 

controlled burn in the surrounding 

marshes to reduce vegetation biomass. 

In 2013 and 2014, the BLM handexcavated 11 pools and increased the 

open-water habitat by 196 yds2 (164 m2) 

(Scheerer et al. 2014, p. 9). The response 

of Foskett speckled dace to this habitat 

enhancement was substantial but 

relatively short-lived (see Abundance, 

below). 

Dace Spring is approximately 0.5 mile 

(mi) (0.8 kilometer (km)) south of 

Foskett Spring and is smaller than 

Foskett Spring. Baseline water quality 

and vegetation monitoring at Foskett 

and Dace springs were initiated by the 

BLM in 1987. Data collected on 

September 28, 1988, documented that 

the springs had similar water chemistry, 

temperature, and turbidity (Williams et 

al. 1990, p. 244). To increase open-water 

habitat, the BLM and the Service 

worked together in 2009, to construct 

two ponds connected to the outlet 

channel of Dace Spring. In 2013, the 

BLM reconfigured the inlet and outlet to 

the two ponds, allowing greater water 

flow and improving water quality 

(Scheerer et al. 2013, p. 8). 

Abundance 

The population of Foskett speckled 

dace has been monitored regularly by 

the ODFW since 2005, and, while 

variable, the population appears to be 

resilient (i.e., ability of a species to 

withstand natural variation in habitat 

conditions and weather as well as 

random events). General observations 

made during these population surveys 

included the presence of multiple ageclasses and the presence of young-ofthe-year, which indicates that breeding 

is occurring and young are surviving for 

multiple years. Bond (1974) visually 

estimated the population in Foskett 

Spring to be between 1,500 and 2,000 

individuals in 1974. In 1997, the ODFW 

obtained mark-recapture population 

estimates at both Foskett and Dace 

springs (Dambacher et al. 1997, no 

pagination). The Foskett Spring estimate 

was 27,787 fish, and the majority of the 

fish (97 percent) occurred in an openwater pool located in the marsh outside 

of the existing Foskett Spring cattle 

exclosure. Since 1997, population 

estimates have varied from 751 to 

24,888 individuals (Table 1). The data 

in Table 1 were obtained using the 

Lincoln-Petersen model (1997–2012), 

the Huggins closed-capture model 

(2011–2014), and a state-space model 

(2015–2016). Estimates were not 

calculated by habitat type using the 

Huggins model in 2011, because lengthfrequency data were not available for 

each habitat location (Scheerer et al. 

2015, pp. 4–7; Scheerer et al. 2013, p. 

5; Scheerer et al. 2014, p. 6; Scheerer et 

al. 2016, p. 6). Different models have 

been used to estimate abundance 

through time to provide the most 

accurate and robust estimates; for 

example, it was determined that the 

Lincoln-Petersen estimator had 

underestimated abundance (Peterson et 

al. 2015). Abundance declined 

substantially from 1997 through 2012, a 

period when aquatic plants 

substantially expanded into open-water 

habitats (Scheerer et al. 2016, p. 9). The 

higher population estimates from 2013 

through 2015 were attributed to habitat 

management that increased open-water 

habitat (see below) and most fish 

occurred in maintained habitats 

(Scheerer et al. 2016, p. 9). The 

population decline documented in 2016 

in Foskett Spring was likely a result of 

vegetation regrowth into the excavated 

areas (Scheerer et al. 2016, pp. 6–9). As 

a result of the vegetation regrowth and 

population decline in 2016, and 

consistent with the CMP, the BLM 

conducted an extensive habitat 

enhancement project in 2017, 

excavating approximately 300 cubic 

yards (yds2) (251 m2) of vegetation and 

accumulated sediment in the Foskett 

Spring pool, stream, and portions of the 

wetland, resulting in a significant 

increase in open-water habitat. Prior to 

initiating this enhancement project in 

2017, the ODFW conducted a 

population survey that estimated 4,279 

dace in Foskett Spring (95 percent CI: 

3,878–4,782), a moderate increase in the 

estimate from the prior year (1,830) (P. 

Scheerer, ODFW, pers. comm. 2017). As 

noted previously, and as illustrated in 

Table 1 below, the variability in 

abundance is not uncommon for this 

species and appears in part to be driven 

by the availability of open-water habitat. 

Given information gained from prior 

habitat enhancement actions at Foskett 

and Dace springs, we anticipate the 

extensive habitat enhancement work 

conducted by the BLM in 2017 will 

support an increase in abundance in 

coming years. 


rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 3 / Thursday, January 4, 2018 / Proposed Rules 479 

TABLE 1—FOSKETT SPRING: POPULATION ESTIMATES WITH 95 PERCENT CONFIDENCE INTERVALS OF FOSKETT SPECKLED

DACE BY HABITAT TYPE

Model Yr 1

Habitat Type or Location 

Management 

Spring Pool Spring brook Tule marsh Cattail marsh Entire site 2

Lincoln-Petersen.1997 204 (90–317) 702 (1,157– 

2,281).

no sample ...... 26,881 

(13,158– 

40,605).

27,787 

(14,057– 

41,516).

none. 

2005 1,627 (1,157– 

2,284).

755 (514– 

1,102).

425 (283–636) 353 (156–695) 3,147 (2,535– 

3,905).

none. 

2007 1,418 (1,003– 

1,997).

719 (486– 

1,057).

273 (146–488) 422 (275–641) 2,984 (2,403– 

3,702).

none. 

2009 247 (122–463) 1,111 (774– 

1,587).

1,062 (649– 

1,707).

158 (57–310) 2,830 (2,202– 

3,633).

none. 

2011 322 (260–399) 262 (148–449) 301 (142–579) 0 ..................... 751 (616–915) none. 

2012 404 (354–472) 409 (357–481) 220 (159–357) 0 ..................... 988 (898– 

1,098).

Controlled burn. 

Huggins .......... 2011 NA3 ................ NA .................. NA .................. NA .................. 1,728 (1,269– 

2,475).

none. 

2012 633 (509–912) 589 (498– 

1,024).

625 (442–933) 0 ..................... 1,848 (1,489– 

2,503).

Controlled burn. 

2013 2,579 (1,985– 

3,340).

638 (566–747) 6,891 (5,845– 

8,302).

3,033 (2,500– 

3,777).

13,142 (1,157– 

2,284).

Pool excavation and hand excavation of spring brook 

and marshes. 

2014 2,843 (2,010– 

3,243).

7,571 (2,422– 

13,892).

11,595 (7,891– 

12,682).

2,936 (1,757– 

7,002).

24,888 

(19,250– 

35,510).

Pool excavation and hand excavation of spring brook 

and marshes. 

State-space .... 2015 698 (520– 

2,284).

11,941 (5,465– 

15,632).

3,662 (2,158– 

6,565).

38 (8–111) ..... 16,340 

(10,980– 

21,577).

none. 

2016 138 (122–226) 656 (609– 

1240).

1,021 (926– 

1245).

14 (12–19) ..... 1,830 (1,694– 

2,144).

none. 

2017 925 ................. 1,032 .............. 2,322 .............. NA4 ................ 4,279 (3,878– 

4,782).

Mechanical excavation to 

deepen the open water 

pools and channels. 

1 Note that there are two population estimates (i.e. Lincoln-Petersen and Huggins) for 2011 and 2012. 2Site estimate totals were calculated from the total number of marked and recaptured fish and are not the sum of the estimates for the habitat 

types. 3 No estimates were calculated; see (Scheerer et al. 2015, pp. 4–7). 4The cattail marsh habitat was too shallow to survey in 2017. 

No Foskett speckled dace were 

documented in Dace Spring in the 

1970s. In 1979 and 1980, individuals 

were translocated from Foskett Spring to 

Dace Spring (Williams et al. 1990, p. 

243; see Table 2). Although an estimated 

300 fish were documented in 1986 

(Williams et al. 1990, p. 243), this initial 

effort failed to establish a population at 

Dace Spring due to a lack of successful 

recruitment (Dambacher et al. 1997, no 

pagination). Only 19 fish were observed 

in 1997, and subsequent surveys failed 

to locate individuals in Dace Springs 

(Scheerer and Jacobs 2005, p. 2). In 

2009, two pools were created at Dace 

Spring to increase open-water habitat 

and additional individuals were moved 

to the spring. Although recruitment was 

documented, major algal blooms and 

periods of low dissolved oxygen 

resulted in low survival (Scheerer et al. 

2012, p. 8). Habitat manipulation by the 

BLM in 2013 improved water quality, 

and recruitment was documented in 

2014 and 2015 (Scheerer et al. 2014, p. 

6; Scheerer et al. 2015, p. 5). The two 

constructed pools at Dace Spring are 

currently providing additional habitat 

and may continue to serve as a refuge 

population for Foskett speckled dace. 

Based on 2017 population estimates, 

Dace Spring numbers have increased 

dramatically since 2013 (Table 2). The 

population estimates in Table 2 were 

made with 95 percent confidence 

intervals, translocations, and habitat 

management (Williams et al. 1990, p. 

243; Dambacher et al. 1997, no 

pagination; Scheerer and Jacobs 2005, p. 

2; Scheerer et al. 2012, p. 1; Scheerer et 

al. 2013, pp. 2, 8; Scheerer et al. 2014, 

pp. 6, 9; Scheerer et al. 2015, p. 5; 

Scheerer et al. 2016, p. 6; Scheerer et. 

al. 2017, p. 6). 

TABLE 2—DACE SPRING: SUMMARY OF FOSKETT SPECKLED DACE POPULATION ESTIMATES

Year Population estimate Number translocated Habitat management 

Pre-1979 ...... 0 ..................................................... none ............................................... none. 

1979 ............ no estimate .................................... 50 ................................................... none. 

1980 ............ no estimate .................................... 50 ................................................... none. 

1986 ............ 300 1 ............................................... none ............................................... none. 

1997 ............ <20 1 ............................................... none ............................................... none. 

2005 ............ 0 ..................................................... none ............................................... none. 

2009 ............ no estimate .................................... none ............................................... construction of 2 pools. 

2010 ............ no estimate .................................... 49 ................................................... none. 

2011 ............ 34 (11–36) ...................................... 75 ................................................... none. 


rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
480 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 3 / Thursday, January 4, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—DACE SPRING: SUMMARY OF FOSKETT SPECKLED DACE POPULATION ESTIMATES—Continued 

Year Population estimate Number translocated Habitat management 

2012 ............ 13 2 ................................................. none ............................................... none. 

2013 ............ 34 (17–62) ...................................... 200 ................................................. construction of flow through channels. 

2014 ............ 552 (527–694) ................................ 324 ................................................. none. 

2015 ............ 876 (692–1,637) ............................. none ............................................... none. 

2016 ............ 1,964 (1,333–4,256) ....................... none ............................................... none. 

2017 ............ 15,729 (12,259–58,479) ................. none ............................................... none. 

1 No confidence interval calculated. 

2 In 2012, there were a known total of 13 individuals. 

Recovery Planning and Recovery 

Criteria 

Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to 

develop and implement recovery plans 

for the conservation and survival of 

endangered and threatened species 

unless we determine that such a plan 

will not promote the conservation of the 

species. Under section 4(f)(1)(B)(ii), 

recovery plans must, to the maximum 

extent practicable, include objective, 

measurable criteria which, when met, 

would result in a determination, in 

accordance with the provisions of 

section 4 of the Act, that the species be 

removed from the List. However, 

revisions to the List (i.e., adding, 

removing, or reclassifying a species) 

must reflect determinations made in 

accordance with sections 4(a)(1) and 

4(b) of the Act. Section 4(a)(1) requires 

that the Secretary determine whether a 

species is endangered or threatened (or 

not) because of one or more of five 

threat factors. Section 4(b) of the Act 

requires that the determination be made 

‘‘solely on the basis of the best scientific 

and commercial data available.’’ 

Therefore, recovery criteria should help 

indicate when we would anticipate an 

analysis of the five threat factors under 

section 4(a)(1) would result in a 

determination that the species is no 

longer an endangered species or 

threatened species after evaluating the 

five statutory factors (see Summary of 

Factors Affecting the Species, below). 

While recovery plans provide 

important guidance to the Service, 

States, and other partners on methods of 

minimizing threats to listed species and 

measurable objectives against which to 

measure progress towards recovery, they 

are not regulatory documents and 

cannot substitute for the determinations 

and promulgation of regulations 

required under section 4(a)(1) of the 

Act. A decision to revise the status of a 

species or remove it from the List is 

ultimately based on analysis of the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

to determine whether a species is no 

longer considered endangered or 

threatened, regardless of whether that 

information differs from the recovery 

plan. 

Recovery plans may be revised to 

address continuing or new threats to the 

species as new substantive information 

becomes available. The recovery plan 

identifies site-specific management 

actions that will help recover the 

species, measurable criteria that set a 

trigger for eventual review of the 

species’ listing status (e.g., under a 5- 

year review conducted by the Service), 

and methods for monitoring recovery 

progress. Recovery plans are intended to 

establish goals for long-term 

conservation of listed species and define 

criteria that are designed to indicate 

when the threats facing a species have 

been removed or reduced to such an 

extent that the species may no longer 

need the protections of the Act. 

There are many paths to 

accomplishing recovery of a species, 

and recovery may be achieved without 

all criteria being fully met. For example, 

one or more criteria may be exceeded 

while other criteria may not yet be met. 

In that instance, we may determine that 

the threats are minimized sufficiently to 

delist. In other cases, recovery 

opportunities may be discovered that 

were not known when the recovery plan 

was finalized. These opportunities may 

be used instead of methods identified in 

the recovery plan. Likewise, information 

on the species may be learned that was 

not known at the time the recovery plan 

was finalized. The new information may 

change the extent that criteria need to be 

met for recognizing recovery of the 

species. Recovery of a species is a 

dynamic process requiring adaptive 

management that may, or may not, fully 

follow the guidance provided in a 

recovery plan. 

The Oregon Desert Fishes Working 

Group has been proactive in improving 

the conservation status of the Foskett 

speckled dace. This group of Federal 

and State agency biologists, 

academicians, and others has met 

annually since 2007 to: (1) Share 

species’ status information; (2) share 

results of new research; and (3) assess 

ongoing threats to the species. 

The primary conservation objective in 

the Foskett speckled dace recovery plan 

is to enhance its long-term persistence 

through the conservation and 

enhancement of its limited range and 

habitat (USFWS 1998, entire). The 

recovery plan states that the Foskett 

speckled dace spring habitat is currently 

stable, but extremely restricted, and any 

alterations to the spring or surrounding 

activities that indirectly modify the 

spring could lead to the extinction of 

this species. While the recovery plan 

does not explicitly tie the recovery 

criteria to the five listing factors in 

section 4(a)(1) of the Act, our analysis 

of whether the species has achieved 

recovery is based on these five factors, 

which are discussed in the Summary of 

Factors Affecting the Species section, 

below. The recovery plan outlines three 

recovery criteria to assist in determining 

when the Foskett speckled dace has 

recovered to the point that the 

protections afforded by the Act are no 

longer needed, which are summarized 

below. A detailed review of the recovery 

criteria for the Foskett speckled dace is 

presented in the species’ 5-year review 

(USFWS 2015), which is available 

online at https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_

year_review/doc4758.pdf, at http://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R1–ES–2017–0051, or by 

requesting a copy from our Oregon Fish 

and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). The 2015 5-year 

review concluded that the risk of 

extinction has been substantially 

reduced, as threats have been managed, 

and recommended that the species be 

proposed for delisting (USFWS 2015, p. 

29). The Foskett speckled dace has 

exceeded or met the following criteria 

for delisting described in the recovery 

plan: 

Recovery Criterion 1: Long-term 

protection to habitat, including spring 

source aquifers, spring pools and 

outflow channels, and surrounding 

lands, is assured. 

Criterion 1 has been met. In 1987, the 

BLM acquired and now manages the 

160-ac (65-ha) parcel of land containing 

both Foskett and Dace springs (see 


rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 3 / Thursday, January 4, 2018 / Proposed Rules 481 

below) and fenced 70 ac (28 ha) to 

exclude cattle from both springs, 

although the fence does not include the 

entire occupied habitat for Foskett 

speckled dace. The acquisition of this 

parcel of land by the BLM was 

specifically to provide conservation 

benefit to the Foskett speckled dace. We 

anticipate continued ownership of this 

habitat by the BLM in the future in part 

due to direction in the BLM’s Lakeview 

District Resource Management Plan 

(RMP), which includes a management 

goal of retaining public land with high 

public resource values and managing 

that land for the purpose for which it 

was acquired (BLM 2003, p. 92). 

Additional support for continued 

ownership and management of the site 

by the BLM rests in the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act of 1976 

(FLPMA) (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), as 

amended, which directs the BLM to 

manage public land to provide habitat 

for fish and aquatic wildlife and to 

protect the quality of water resources. 

Lastly, continued ownership and 

management by the BLM, and the 

protections afforded to Foskett and Dace 

springs from public ownership, is 

supported by the BLM’s involvement as 

a cooperating agency in the 

development and implementation of the 

CMP finalized in August 2015 (USFWS 

et al. 2015). 

While little information is available 

regarding spring flows or the status of 

the aquifer, the aquifer has limited 

capability to produce water for domestic 

or stock use (Gonthier 1985, p. 7). Given 

this, few wells exist in the Warner 

Valley and thus are not likely to impact 

Foskett or Dace springs. Recovery 

Criterion 1 addresses listing factor A 

(present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range). 

Recovery Criterion 2: Long-term 

habitat management guidelines are 

developed and implemented to ensure 

the continued persistence of important 

habitat features and include monitoring 

of current habitat and investigation for 

and evaluation of new spring habitats. 

Criterion 2 has been met. With the 

understanding that the Foskett speckled 

dace is a conservation-reliant species, 

the BLM, ODFW, and Service developed 

a CMP (USFWS et al. 2015) that outlines 

long-term management actions 

necessary to provide for the continued 

persistence of habitats important to 

Foskett speckled dace. The CMP was 

agreed to, finalized, and signed by the 

Service, BLM, and ODFW in August 

2015. The cooperating parties 

committed to the following actions: (1) 

Protect and manage Foskett speckled 

dace habitat; (2) enhance the habitat 

when needed; (3) monitor Foskett 

speckled dace populations and habitat; 

and (4) implement an emergency 

contingency plan as needed to address 

potential threats from the introduction 

of nonnative species, pollutants, or 

other unforeseen threats (USFWS et al. 

2015, p. 3). 

Although the CMP is a voluntary 

agreement among the three cooperating 

agencies, it is reasonable to conclude 

the plan will be implemented into the 

foreseeable future for multiple reasons. 

First, each of the cooperating agencies 

have established a long record of 

engagement in conservation actions for 

Foskett speckled dace, including the 

BLM’s prior contributions through land 

acquisition and three decades of habitat 

management at Foskett and Dace 

springs; scientific research and 

monitoring by the ODFW dating back to 

1997; and funding support, coordination 

of recovery actions, and legal 

obligations by the Service to monitor the 

species into the future under the Foskett 

speckled dace post-delisting monitoring 

plan. In addition, all three cooperating 

agencies are active participants in the 

Oregon Desert Fishes Working Group, 

an interagency group facilitated by the 

Service that meets annually to discuss 

recent monitoring and survey 

information for multiple fish species, 

including Foskett speckled dace, as well 

as to coordinate future monitoring and 

management activities. 

Second, implementation of the CMP 

is already underway. The BLM has 

conducted quarterly site visits to 

determine the general health of the local 

spring environment using photo point 

monitoring techniques. In 2017, the 

BLM conducted an extensive habitat 

enhancement project by excavating 

approximately 300 yards (yds2) (251 m2) 

of vegetation and accumulated sediment 

in the Foskett Spring pool, stream, and 

portions of the wetland, resulting in a 

significant increase in open-water 

habitat. The BLM also provided funding 

to the ODFW to conduct population 

estimates of Foskett speckled dace. The 

ODFW provided personnel and 

technical assistance to the BLM for the 

above-mentioned excavation work in 

2017, and they conducted an abundance 

estimate in 2017 to keep track of the 

long-term trend of the population. The 

Service provided personnel and 

technical assistance to the BLM for the 

2017 excavation work and provided 

funding to the ODFW in 2015, 2016, and 

2017 to conduct population estimates in 

Foskett and Dace springs. 

Third, the conservation mission and 

authorities of these agencies authorize 

this work even if the species is delisted. 

For example, the Lakeview District 

BLM’s Resource Management Plan 

(RMP) and BLM Manual 6840.06E both 

provide general management direction 

for Special Status Species, including the 

Foskett speckled dace. The FLPMA also 

directs the BLM to manage public land 

to provide habitat for fish and aquatic 

wildlife and to protect the quality of 

water resources. The ODFW’s State of 

Oregon Wildlife Diversity Plan (Oregon 

Administrative Rule (OAR) 635–100– 

0080), Oregon Native Fish Conservation 

Policy (OAR 636–007–0502), and the 

Oregon Conservation Strategy (ODFW 

2016) each provide protective measures 

for the conservation of native fish 

including Foskett speckled dace, which 

will remain on the ODFW’s sensitive 

species list even we remove it from the 

Federal List. The Service is authorized 

to assist in the protection of fish and 

wildlife and their habitats under 

authorities provided by the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1536), the Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), 

and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 

(16 U.S.C. 742a–742j, not including 

742d–l). 

Fourth, there is a practical reason to 

anticipate implementation of the CMP 

into the foreseeable future: The CMP 

actions are technically not complicated 

to implement, and costs are relatively 

low. We also have confidence that the 

actions called for in the CMP will be 

effective in the future because they have 

already proven effective as evidenced by 

the information collected from recent 

habitat actions and associated 

monitoring (Scheerer et al. 2016, entire). 

Lastly, if the CMP is not adhered to 

by the cooperating agencies or an 

evaluation by the Service suggests the 

habitat and population numbers are 

declining, the Service would evaluate 

the need to again add the species to the 

List (i.e., ‘‘relist’’ the species) under the 

Act. Taken together, it is therefore 

reasonable to conclude that the CMP 

will be implemented as anticipated and 

that the long-term recovery of Foskett 

speckled dace will be maintained and 

monitored adequately. 

Criterion 2 has been further met by 

the establishment of a refuge population 

of Foskett speckled dace at nearby Dace 

Spring. As described earlier in this 

proposed rule, dating back to 1979, 

multiple unsuccessful attempts were 

made to create a refuge population of 

Foskett speckled dace at Dace Spring. 

More recent actions have been more 

successful. Habitat modification at Dace 

Spring by the BLM, first in 2009 and 

again in 2013, and translocation of dace 

from Foskett Spring to Dace Spring by 

the ODFW in 2010, 2011, 2013, and 

2014, have resulted in a population 

estimated in 2017 to be 15,729 fish 


rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
482 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 3 / Thursday, January 4, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

(Table 2, above). Natural recruitment 

was documented in 2014, 2015, and 

2016 (Scheerer et al. 2016, p. 6). 

While our proposal to delist Foskett 

speckled dace is not dependent on the 

existence of a second population, the 

redundancy of a second population of 

Foskett speckled dace, should it prove 

viable over the long term, provides 

increased resiliency to the species’ 

overall status and may reduce 

vulnerability to stochastic events and 

any future threats that may appear on 

the landscape. 

Recovery Criterion 3: Research into 

life history, genetics, population trends, 

habitat use and preference, and other 

important parameters is conducted to 

assist in further developing and/or 

refining criteria 1 and 2 above. 

This criterion has been met through 

population surveys by the ODFW and 

the Service, and investigations into the 

genetic relatedness of Foskett speckled 

dace in comparison with other nearby 

dace populations. In 1997, the Service 

contracted the ODFW to conduct an 

abundance survey and develop a 

population estimate for the Foskett 

speckled dace. In 2005, 2007, 2009, and 

2011 through 2017, the Service again 

contracted the ODFW to obtain markrecapture population estimates for both 

Foskett and Dace springs. At the former, 

habitat-specific population estimates 

were developed. Captured fish were 

measured to develop length-frequency 

histograms to document reproduction. 

In addition to collecting abundance 

data, ODFW staff mapped wetland 

habitats, monitored vegetation, and 

measured temperature and water quality 

at both springs during each survey. 

Together, the population estimates and 

habitat mapping confirmed the 

relationship between open-water habitat 

and fish abundance (Sheerer et al. 2016, 

p. 8). Water quality monitoring 

highlighted the need for habitat 

enhancement at Dace Springs. Thus, 

these data assisted in further developing 

and/or refining recovery criteria 1 and 2. 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species 

Section 4 of the Act and its 

implementing regulations (50 CFR part 

424) set forth the procedures for listing 

species, reclassifying species, or 

removing species from listed status. 

‘‘Species’’ is defined by the Act as 

including any species or subspecies of 

fish or wildlife or plants, and any 

distinct vertebrate population segment 

of fish or wildlife that interbreeds when 

mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A species 

may be determined to be an endangered 

or threatened species because of any one 

or a combination of the five factors 

described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act: 

(A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

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

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. We must consider these same 

five factors in delisting a species. We 

may delist a species according to 50 

CFR 424.11(d) if the best available 

scientific and commercial data indicate 

that the species is neither endangered 

nor threatened for the following reasons: 

(1) The species is extinct; (2) the species 

has recovered and is no longer 

endangered or threatened; and/or (3) the 

original scientific data used at the time 

the species was classified were in error. 

A recovered species is one that no 

longer meets the Act’s definition of 

endangered or threatened. Determining 

whether a species is recovered requires 

consideration of the same five categories 

of threats specified in section 4(a)(1) of 

the Act. For species that are already 

listed as endangered or threatened, this 

analysis of threats is an evaluation of 

both the threats currently facing the 

species and the threats that are 

reasonably likely to affect the species in 

the foreseeable future following 

delisting or downlisting (i.e., 

reclassification from endangered to 

threatened) and the removal or 

reduction of the Act’s protections. 

A species is ‘‘endangered’’ for 

purposes of the Act if it is in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a 

‘‘significant portion of its range’’ and is 

‘‘threatened’’ if it is likely to become 

endangered within the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a ‘‘significant 

portion of its range.’’ The word ‘‘range’’ 

in the significant portion of its range 

phrase refers to the range in which the 

species currently exists. For the 

purposes of this analysis, we will 

evaluate whether the currently listed 

species, the Foskett speckled dace, 

should be considered endangered or 

threatened throughout all of its range. 

Then we will consider whether there are 

any significant portions of the Foskett 

speckled dace’s range where the species 

is in danger of extinction or likely to 

become so within the foreseeable future. 

The Act does not define the term 

‘‘foreseeable future.’’ For the purpose of 

this proposed rule, we defined the 

‘‘foreseeable future’’ to be the extent to 

which, given the amount and substance 

of available data, we can anticipate 

events or effects, or reliably extrapolate 

threat trends, such that we reasonably 

believe that reliable predictions can be 

made concerning the future as it relates 

to the status of the Foskett speckled 

dace. 

Based on population monitoring that 

began in 1997 by the ODFW, it has been 

established that the Foskett speckled 

dace population is variable, and the 

variability is directly linked to the 

amount of open-water habitat (Scheerer 

et al. 2016, p. 8). There is no evidence 

to indicate that this relationship will 

change in the future. There also is no 

reason to expect local changes to ground 

water levels (see Factor A discussion, 

below), and climate changes modeled 

over the next 30 plus years (i.e., through 

2049) are not predicted to impact the 

Foskett speckled dace (see Factor E 

discussion, below). 

Based on 30 years of the BLM owning 

and managing habitat at Foskett and 

Dace springs, 20 years of population 

monitoring by the ODFW, modeling of 

climate change impacts that suggest 

little change in environmental 

conditions over the next 30 years in the 

Warner Lakes Basin, and agency 

commitments in the CMP to manage 

habitat and monitor population status of 

the Foskett speckled dace by the three 

agency cooperators, we determine it is 

reasonable to define the foreseeable 

future for the Foskett speckled dace as 

30 years. In considering what factors 

might constitute threats, we must look 

beyond the exposure of the species to a 

particular factor to evaluate whether the 

species may respond to the factor in a 

way that causes actual impacts to the 

species. If there is exposure to a factor 

and the species responds negatively, the 

factor may be a threat, and during the 

status review, we attempt to determine 

how significant a threat it is. The threat 

is significant if it drives or contributes 

to the risk of extinction of the species, 

such that the species warrants listing as 

endangered or threatened as those terms 

are defined by the Act. However, the 

identification of factors that could 

impact a species negatively may not be 

sufficient to compel a finding that the 

species warrants listing. The 

information must include evidence 

sufficient to suggest that the potential 

threat is likely to materialize and that it 

has the capacity (i.e., it should be of 

sufficient magnitude and extent) to 

affect the species’ status such that it 

meets the definition of endangered or 

threatened under the Act. 

Factor A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

The Service listed the Foskett 

speckled dace as threatened in 1985 (50 

FR 12302; March 28, 1985), due to the 

species’ very restricted range, its low 


rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 3 / Thursday, January 4, 2018 / Proposed Rules 483 

abundance, and extremely restricted 

and vulnerable habitat which was being 

modified. Adverse factors that were 

identified in the final listing rule 

included groundwater pumping for 

irrigation, excessive trampling of the 

habitat by livestock, channeling of the 

springs for agricultural purposes, other 

mechanical modifications of the aquatic 

ecosystem, and livestock water uses. 

The vulnerability of the habitat was 

accentuated by its very small size and 

a water flow rate of less than 0.5 cubic 

feet (ft3) per second (0.01 cubic meters 

(m3) per second) (50 FR 12304). 

Livestock Use and Mechanical 

Modification 

Trampling of the wetland habitat was 

evident at the time of listing. Grazing 

cattle affects the form and function of 

stream and pool habitat by hoof 

shearing, compaction of soils, and 

mechanical alteration of the habitat. 

Since the listing, the BLM acquired the 

property containing Foskett and Dace 

springs by land exchange in 1987, and 

fenced 70 ac (28 ha) of the 160-ac (65- 

ha) parcel to exclude cattle from both 

Foskett and Dace springs as well as the 

two recently constructed ponds. While 

the exclusion of cattle likely improved 

water quality and habitat stability, it 

may have played a role in increasing the 

extent of encroaching aquatic 

vegetation. 

Although most of the habitat was 

excluded from grazing, a portion of the 

occupied habitat was not included in 

the fenced area. Examining the 

population trends within this unfenced 

habitat illustrates the variability of the 

population and the ability of the 

population to respond to management. 

In 1997, 97 percent of the estimated 

population of Foskett speckled dace was 

located in a shallow open-water pool in 

the cattail marsh (hereafter marsh) 

outside of the Foskett Spring exclosure 

fence. This marsh was dry in 1989 

(Dambacher et al. 1997, no pagination), 

illustrating the variability in habitat 

conditions of this wetland system. 

In 2007, 14 percent of the estimated 

population of 2,984 Foskett speckled 

dace was located in the marsh outside 

of the exclusion fence (Scheerer and 

Jacobs 2007, p. 7), and trampling of the 

wetland habitat by cattle was evident 

(USFWS 2015, p. 19). 

In 2011 and 2012, no Foskett speckled 

dace were detected in the marsh outside 

of the exclusion fence (Scheerer et al. 

2014, p. 6). In response, the BLM 

conducted a controlled burn in 2013; 

and in 2013 and 2014, they excavated 

open-water habitat in the marsh. In 

2013, over 13,000 Foskett speckled dace 

were detected, with nearly 10,000 being 

in the restored marsh (Scheerer et al. 

2013, p. 9). In 2014, nearly 25,000 

Foskett speckled dace were detected, 

with nearly 19,000 being in the restored 

marsh (Scheerer et al. 2014, p. 9). 

Unfortunately, the marsh and excavated 

pools outside the fence quickly grew 

dense with vegetation, and the 

excavated pool filled in with sediment; 

it is unclear if the pasture was rested 

during this period. Nonetheless, the 

positive relationship between dace 

abundance and open water (Scheerer et 

al. 2016, p. 8) illustrates the need for 

periodic vegetation removal to maintain 

appropriate habitat for the Foskett 

speckled dace (Scheerer et al. 2014, 

p. 9). 

Sometime in fall and/or winter of 

2014 to 2015, unauthorized cattle 

grazing occurred in both the Foskett and 

Dace spring exclosures (Leal 2015, pers. 

comm.). Cattle accessed the site after a 

gate was removed illegally. Based on 

photos provided by the BLM, it appears 

the vegetation utilization was sporadic 

although heavy in some areas, but 

damage to Foskett and Dace springs’ 

streambanks appeared inconsequential. 

The BLM has replaced the gate and will 

continue to maintain the fence per their 

commitments outlined in the CMP 

(USFWS et al. 2015). Although cattle 

did access the Foskett and Dace spring 

sites, over time these exclosures have 

sufficiently protected Foskett and Dace 

springs from damage from livestock 

grazing. The quarterly site visits 

committed to by the BLM in the CMP 

will increase the ability to detect and 

remedy any future issues with open 

gates or downed fences. However, due 

to the remoteness of the site it is 

possible unauthorized grazing within 

the enclosures may infrequently occur 

in the foreseeable future. Given the 

results of previous monitoring of grazing 

within the enclosures we do not view 

grazing in the enclosure as a threat in 

the foreseeable future. 

Field surveys conducted from 2005 

through 2015 at Foskett Spring did not 

reveal any sign of artificial channeling 

of water or mechanized impacts beyond 

the remnants of historical activities (i.e., 

two small rock cribs and side-casting of 

material around the spring). The habitat 

at Foskett Spring is extremely limited, 

and past encroachment by aquatic 

vegetation has reduced the area of open 

water. The decline in abundance of 

Foskett speckled dace from 1997 to 2011 

(see Table 1, above) was likely due to 

the reduction in open-water habitat 

(Scheerer and Jacobs 2005, pp. 5, 7; 

Scheerer et al. 2012, p. 8). Management 

to increase open-water habitat, while 

very effective in the short term, needs to 

be periodically repeated as sediment 

infilling and subsequent growth of 

aquatic vegetation is continuous. As 

such, periodic management will be 

needed in perpetuity to maintain highquality habitat for the Foskett speckled 

dace. 

The ODFW recommended that 

restoration efforts to increase openwater habitat are needed to increase 

carrying capacity for Foskett speckled 

dace (Scheerer and Jacobs 2007, p. 9; 

Scheerer and Jacobs 2009, pp. 5–6). 

Restoration efforts were conducted at 

Foskett Spring in 2013 and 2014, and 

resulted in a 164 percent increase in 

open-water habitat and a peak 

population estimate in 2014 of 24,888 

individuals (Scheerer et al. 2016, pp. 8– 

9). Periodic habitat maintenance at 

Foskett and Dace springs will be 

necessary to maintain open-water 

habitat for the Foskett speckled dace. 

The BLM, ODFW, and Service have 

committed to periodic habitat 

maintenance in the CMP signed in 

August 2015. As noted earlier in this 

proposed rule, the CMP identifies 

actions such as protection of the aquatic 

habitat and surrounding land; 

management of the habitat to ensure 

continued persistence of important 

habitat features; monitoring of the fish 

populations and habitat; and 

implementation of an emergency 

contingency plan in case of nonnative 

introduction, pollutants, or other 

unforeseen threats. Implementation of 

these actions will significantly reduce or 

eliminate threats related to destruction, 

modification or curtailment of the 

Foskett speckled dace’s habitat or range. 

It is reasonable to conclude the CMP 

will be implemented into the 

foreseeable future for the reasons 

summarized in the Recovery Planning 

and Recovery Criteria discussion, above. 

Mechanical modification and 

livestock watering uses are no longer 

considered a threat since the BLM 

acquired the property containing both 

Foskett and Dace springs and 

constructed a fence to exclude cattle 

from a majority of the habitat. We 

anticipate continued monitoring and 

maintenance of the exclusion fence into 

the foreseeable future by the BLM based 

on their commitments in the CMP and 

their long record of conservation 

management of habitat at Foskett and 

Dace springs. 

Pumping of Groundwater and Lowering 

of the Water Table 

Streams and lakes in and around the 

Warner Basin have produced a variety 

of unconsolidated Pliocene to Holocene 

sediments that have accumulated and 

contribute to the structure of the aquifer 

(Gonthier 1985, p. 17). Wells in other 


rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
484 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 3 / Thursday, January 4, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

portions of the Warner Basin utilizing 

these Pleistocene lake bed aquifers tend 

to have low to moderate yields. 

Pleistocene lake bed deposits of clay, 

sand, and diatomaceous earth (i.e., soft, 

crumbly soil formed from the fossil 

remains of algae) have a thickness of up 

to 200 ft (60 m) (Gonthier 1985, pp. 38– 

39; Woody 2007, p. 64). Hydraulic 

conductivity (i.e., ease with which a 

fluid can move) in these sediments 

ranges from 25 to 150 ft per day (7.6 to 

46 m per day); while transmissivity 

(horizontal groundwater flow) in valleys 

in this sediment-filled basin and range 

region of Oregon, such as the Warner 

Valley aquifer system, ranges from 1,000 

to 15,000 square feet (ft2) (92.90 to 

1,393.55 square meters (m2)) per day 

(Gonthier 1985, p. 7). This is considered 

a poor quality aquifer with limited 

capability to produce water for domestic 

or stock use (Gonthier 1985, p. 7). 

Therefore, few wells exist in the Warner 

Valley and are not likely to impact 

Foskett or Dace spring. 

We have no evidence of groundwater 

pumping in the area. A query of the 

Oregon Water Resources Department 

database for water rights did not reveal 

any wells within 5 mi (8 km) of Foskett 

Spring. The closest well listed in the 

database is 5.9 mi (9.5 km) away along 

Twentymile Creek. No other wells were 

located closer to Foskett Spring. 

There are no Oregon Water Resources 

Department records of water rights in 

the vicinity of either spring. Any 

development of water resources and 

filing of water rights on BLM lands 

would require a permit (BLM 2003), and 

we anticipate the likelihood of the BLM 

receiving a permit request related to a 

new water right in the future would be 

low. Although groundwater pumping 

was identified as a potential threat at 

the time of listing, we have determined 

this is not currently a threat and is not 

anticipated to be a threat in the 

foreseeable future. 

Habitat Enhancement and Creation of a 

Refuge Population 

To assess the effects of management 

on reducing the encroachment of 

aquatic vegetation at Foskett Spring and 

the response of fish to increased open 

water, the BLM conducted a controlled 

burn in 2013 in the tule and cattail 

marsh to reduce plant biomass (Scheerer 

et al. 2014, p. 9). In 2013 and 2014, the 

BLM excavated pools to increase openwater habitat. The response of dace to 

these restoration efforts was remarkable 

with the 2014 population estimate being 

24,888 (19,250–31,500; 95 percent 

confidence interval) fish, and most of 

these fish occupied the restored marsh 

areas. The population data indicate that 

fluctuations in abundance and 

population trends are tied to the 

availability of open water (Scheerer et 

al. 2016, p. 8) and illustrate the need for 

periodic management to maintain openwater habitat. 

Habitat restoration at Dace Spring 

followed by translocations of dace has 

resulted in a second subpopulation of 

Foskett speckled dace. Two ponds were 

created and connected to the outlet 

channel of Dace Spring, and Foskett 

speckled dace were translocated to the 

ponds. The 2016 population estimate 

was 1,964 fish, which is a substantial 

increase from the 2013 estimate of 34 

fish. The estimate includes the 200 dace 

that were transplanted from Foskett 

Spring in 2013 (Scheerer et al. 2014, p. 

6). The 2017 population estimate in 

Dace Spring was 15,729 (CI: 12,259– 

58,479) (Scheerer et. al. 2017, p. 6). 

Although the broad confidence limits 

infer low precision, even the low-end of 

the confidence limit (12,259) represents 

a significant increase over the 2016 

estimate of 1,964 individuals. 

Reproduction at Dace Spring was 

documented by the ODFW in 2014 

(Scheerer et al. 2014, p. 6) and in 2015 

(Scheerer et al. 2015, p. 5). The ODFW 

is evaluating the long-term status of the 

Dace Spring population. Although 

results are positive, it is premature to 

conclude if establishment of this refuge 

population will be successful over the 

long term. While our proposal to delist 

Foskett speckled dace is not dependent 

on establishment of a refuge population, 

the redundancy of a second population 

of Foskett speckled dace at Dace Spring, 

should it prove viable over the long 

term, provides increased resiliency to 

the species’ overall status and may 

reduce vulnerability to stochastic events 

and any future threats that may appear 

on the landscape. 

Summary of Factor A 

Securing long-term habitat protections 

(Recovery Criterion 1) and developing 

and implementing long-term 

management techniques (Recovery 

Criterion 2) are important recovery 

criteria for this species, and many of the 

factors discussed above fulfill these 

criteria, which also were identified in 

the most recent 5-year review (USFWS 

2015, entire). Acquisition of the 

property by the BLM has facilitated the 

recovery of Foskett speckled dace. The 

recent habitat enhancement work and 

the commitments made in the CMP 

provide assurance that with minor 

oversight and continued habitat 

enhancement by the BLM and ODFW, 

the species is not likely to become an 

endangered species in the foreseeable 

future. Although the CMP is voluntary, 

it is reasonable to conclude, for reasons 

summarized in the Recovery Planning 

and Recovery Criteria discussion above, 

that the plan will be implemented by all 

three cooperating agencies for the 

foreseeable future. 

Based on the best available 

information and confidence that current 

management will continue into the 

future as outlined in the CMP, we 

conclude that the present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of habitat or range does not 

constitute a substantial threat to the 

Foskett speckled dace, now or in the 

foreseeable future. 

Factor B. Overutilization for 

Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes 

Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes was not a factor in listing and, 

based on the best available information, 

we conclude that it does not constitute 

a substantial threat to the Foskett 

speckled dace now or in the foreseeable 

future. 

Factor C. Disease or Predation 

The original listing in 1985 states, 

‘‘There are no known threats to . . . 

Foskett speckled dace from disease or 

predation’’ (50 FR 12304; March 28, 

1985). During the 2005 and 2011 

population surveys, the ODFW biologist 

noted that: ‘‘[t]he fish appear to be in 

good condition with no obvious external 

parasites’’ (Scheerer and Jacobs 2005, p. 

7; Scheerer 2011, p. 6). During the 2007 

and 2009 population surveys, the 

ODFW noted that the Foskett speckled 

dace appeared healthy and near carrying 

capacity for the available habitat at that 

time (Scheerer and Jacobs 2007, p. 8; 

2009, p. 5). We have no additional 

information that would change this 

conclusion. 

The CMP includes quarterly field 

visits to Foskett and Dace springs to 

determine general health of the local 

spring environment and to identify 

threats that necessitate implementation 

of the emergency contingency plan, 

which could include the detection of 

disease and introduced predators. The 

emergency contingency plan describes 

steps to be taken to secure Foskett 

speckled dace in the event their 

persistence is under immediate threat 

(e.g., from introduction of nonnative 

fish that may threaten them due to 

predation or act as a disease vector). 

Summary of Factor C 

Based on the best available 

information, we conclude that disease 

and predation do not constitute 

substantial threats to the Foskett 


rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 3 / Thursday, January 4, 2018 / Proposed Rules 485 

speckled dace now or in the foreseeable 

future. 

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

Under this factor, we examine 

whether existing regulatory mechanisms 

are inadequate to address the threats to 

the Foskett speckled dace discussed 

under other factors. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of 

the Act requires the Service to take into 

account ‘‘those efforts, if any, being 

made by any State or foreign nation, or 

any political subdivision of a State or 

foreign nation, to protect such species.’’ 

In relation to Factor D under the Act, we 

interpret this language to require us to 

consider relevant Federal, State, and 

Tribal laws, regulations, and other such 

mechanisms that may minimize any of 

the threats we describe in the threats 

analyses under the other four factors, or 

otherwise enhance conservation of the 

species. We give strongest weight to 

statutes and their implementing 

regulations and to management 

direction that stems from those laws and 

regulations; an example would be State 

governmental actions enforced under a 

State statute or constitution, or Federal 

action under statute. 

For currently listed species that are 

being considered for delisting, we 

consider the adequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms to address 

threats to the species absent the 

protections of the Act. We examine 

whether other regulatory mechanisms 

would remain in place if the species 

were delisted, and the extent to which 

those mechanisms will continue to help 

ensure that future threats will be 

reduced or minimized. 

The 1985 listing rule states, ‘‘The 

State of Oregon lists . . . Foskett 

speckled dace as [a] ‘‘fully protected 

subspecies’’ under the Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife 

regulations. These regulations prohibit 

taking of the fishes without an Oregon 

scientific collecting permit. However, 

no protection of the habitat is included 

in such a designation and no 

management or recovery plan exists [for 

the Foskett speckled dace]’’ (50 FR 

12304; March 28, 1985). 

The Foskett speckled dace was listed 

as threatened by the State of Oregon in 

1987, as part of the original enactment 

of the Oregon Endangered Species Act 

(Oregon ESA). The listing designated 

Foskett speckled dace as a ‘‘protected 

species’’ and prohibited take or 

possession unless authorized by a 

permit. The Oregon ESA prohibits the 

‘‘take’’ (kill or obtain possession or 

control) of State-listed species without 

an incidental take permit. The Oregon 

ESA applies to actions of State agencies 

on State-owned or -leased land, and 

does not impose any additional 

restrictions on the use of Federal land. 

In recognition of the successful 

conservation actions and future 

management commitments for the 

Foskett speckled dace and its habitat, 

the Oregon Fish and Wildlife 

Commission (OFWC) ruled to remove 

Foskett speckled dace from the State 

List of Threatened and Endangered 

Species on April 21, 2017. 

The ODFW’s Native Fish 

Conservation Policy calls for the 

conservation and recovery of all native 

fish in Oregon (ODFW 2002), including 

Foskett speckled dace, now listed as 

sensitive on the ODFW’s sensitive 

species list. The Native Fish 

Conservation Policy requires that the 

ODFW prevent the serious depletion of 

any native fish species by protecting 

natural ecological communities, 

conserving genetic resources, managing 

consumptive and non-consumptive 

fisheries, and using hatcheries 

responsibly so that naturally produced 

native fish are sustainable (OAR 635– 

007–0503). The policy is implemented 

through the development of 

collaborative conservation plans for 

individual species management units 

that are adopted by the OFWC. To date, 

the ODFW has implemented this policy 

by following the federally adopted 

recovery plan and will continue to 

conserve Foskett speckled dace 

according to the State rules for 

conserving native fish and more 

specifically the commitments made by 

the ODFW in the CMP. The State of 

Oregon Wildlife Diversity Plan (OAR 

635–100–0080), Oregon Native Fish 

Conservation Policy (OAR 636–007– 

0502), and the Oregon Conservation 

Strategy (ODFW 2016) provide 

additional authorities and protective 

measures for the conservation of native 

fish, including the Foskett speckled 

dace. 

Additionally, the CMP, prepared 

jointly and signed by the ODFW, BLM, 

and Service, will guide future 

management and protection of the 

Foskett speckled dace, regardless of its 

State or Federal listing status. The CMP, 

as explained in more detail in the 

Recovery Planning and Recovery 

Criteria discussion above, identifies 

actions to be implemented by the 

Service, BLM, and ODFW to provide for 

the long-term conservation of the 

Foskett speckled dace (Recovery 

Criterion 2). 

The approach of developing an 

interagency CMP for the Foskett 

speckled dace to promote continued 

management post-delisting is consistent 

with a ‘‘conservation reliant species,’’ 

described by Scott et al. (2005, pp. 384– 

385) as those that have generally met 

recovery criteria but require continued 

active management to sustain the 

species and associated habitat in a 

recovered condition. A key component 

of the CMP is continued management of 

aquatic vegetation, as necessary, to 

promote open-water habitat important 

to the species’ long-term viability. 

Finally, the BLM manages the 160-ac 

(65-ha) parcel of land containing the 

Foskett and Dace spring sites consistent 

with the Lakeview District’s RMP (BLM 

2003), which provides general 

management guidelines for Special 

Status Species, and specifically states 

that the BLM will manage the Foskett 

speckled dace and its habitat consistent 

with the species’ 1998 recovery plan. 

Summary of Factor D 

In our discussion under Factors A, B, 

C, and E, we evaluate the significance of 

threats as mitigated by any conservation 

efforts and existing regulatory 

mechanisms. Regulatory mechanisms 

may reduce or eliminate the impacts 

from one or more identified threats. 

Where threats exist, we analyze the 

extent to which conservation measures 

and existing regulatory mechanisms 

address the specific threats to the 

species. The existence of regulatory 

mechanisms like the Lakeview District 

BLM’s RMP, State conservation 

measures such as the Oregon Native 

Fish Conservation Strategy, along with 

the other authorities supporting each 

cooperating agency’s entrance into the 

CMP agreement, reduce risk to the 

Foskett speckled dace and its habitat. As 

previously discussed, conservation 

measures initiated by the State of 

Oregon and the BLM under the CMP 

manage potential threats caused by 

activities such as illegal livestock 

grazing and trampling. For the reasons 

discussed above, we anticipate that the 

conservation measures initiated under 

the CMP will continue through at least 

the foreseeable future, which we have 

defined as 30 years. Consequently, we 

find that conservation measures, along 

with existing State and Federal 

regulatory mechanisms, are adequate to 

address these specific threats absent 

protections under the Act. 

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade 

Factors Affecting Its Continued 

Existence 

The original listing rule in 1985 

states, ‘‘Additional threats include the 

possible introduction of exotic fishes 

into the springs, which could have 

disastrous effects on the endemic. 

Foskett speckled dace, either through 

competitive exclusion, predation, or 


rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
486 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 3 / Thursday, January 4, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

introduced disease. Because these fishes 

occur in such limited and remote areas, 

vandalism also poses a potential threat’’ 

(50 FR 12304; March 28, 1985). 

No exotic fish introduction or acts of 

vandalism have occurred since the time 

of listing. The Foskett speckled dace is 

vulnerable to invasive or nonnative 

species (aquatic plants, invertebrates, or 

fish species). However, this 

vulnerability is reduced in part due to 

the remoteness of the site and the lack 

of recreational or other reasons for the 

public to visit the area. It is also reduced 

by the establishment of a refuge 

population in Dace Spring. While the 

risk of introductions is low, the 

potential impact is high due to the 

highly restricted distribution of the 

Foskett speckled dace. The CMP 

includes quarterly monitoring and an 

emergency contingency plan to address 

potential threats from introduction of 

nonnative species or pollutants. 

Although the introduction of an exotic 

species represents a potential threat to 

the Foskett speckled dace, we believe 

the risk is low based on the isolation of 

the site, the minimal visitor use of the 

springs, the lack of connectivity to other 

waterways, and the monitoring agreed 

to and occurring in accordance with the 

CMP. 

Other Risk Factors 

A species’ habitat requirements, 

population size, and dispersal abilities, 

among other factors, help to determine 

its vulnerability to extinction. Key risk 

factors include small population size, 

dependence on a rare habitat type, 

inability to move away from sources of 

stress or habitat degradation, restrictions 

to a small geographic area, and 

vulnerability to catastrophic loss 

resulting from random or localized 

disturbance (Williams et al. 2005, p. 27). 

The Service listed the Foskett speckled 

dace in 1985 (50 FR 12302; March 28, 

1985), in part due to these factors. This 

species had a very restricted natural 

range, it occurred in low numbers in a 

small spring that was extremely 

vulnerable to destruction or 

modification due to its small size, and 

a water flow rate of less than 0.5 ft3 per 

second (0.01 m3 per second). 

Additionally, the habitat upon which 

the Foskett speckled dace depends is 

fragile and has been affected by past 

livestock grazing and mechanical 

modification. 

Small Population Size 

Surveys by the ODFW from 2005 

through 2017 have documented that the 

number of Foskett speckled dace vary 

considerably through time and by 

habitat type (see Table 1, above), and 

available open-water habitat, which 

fluctuates annually, appears to be the 

key factor in determining the population 

size of this species (Scheerer et al. 2016, 

p. 8). The lowest population estimate 

was 751 fish (using the Lincoln-Petersen 

model) in 2011, and no individuals 

were documented in the cattail marsh 

that year (see Table 1, above). 

Management to create more open water 

in the marsh habitat at Foskett Spring 

was initiated in 2012 and completed in 

2014, increasing the amount of openwater habitat by 150 percent, to 

approximately 358 yds2 (300 m2) 

(Scheerer et al. 2016, pp. 7–9). The 

increase in fish abundance in 2013 

through 2015 was notable, especially in 

the two habitats where management 

occurred (see Table 1, above). 

Based on the relationship between the 

amount of open water and the number 

of Foskett speckled dace, the CMP 

includes removing encroaching 

vegetation to enhance open-water 

habitat, and excavating open-water 

pools. These activities will be 

conducted every 5 to 10 years or as 

determined necessary to maintain openwater habitat to support healthy 

populations of Foskett speckled dace. 

Additionally, the ongoing effort by the 

BLM and the Service to restore Dace 

Spring provides the potential for a 

refuge population of Foskett speckled 

dace. Two ponds have been created and 

connected to the outlet channel of Dace 

Spring; Foskett speckled dace have been 

translocated to the ponds (see Table 2, 

above). Reproduction and an associated 

population increase was documented by 

the ODFW in 2014, 2015, 2016, and 

2017. The ODFW is currently evaluating 

the status of the Foskett speckled dace 

in the new ponds, and, although results 

are positive, it is premature to predict 

long-term viability of the Dace Spring 

population. While our proposal to delist 

Foskett speckled dace is not dependent 

on the establishment of a refuge 

population, the redundancy of a second 

population of Foskett speckled dace 

provides additional robustness to the 

species’ overall status. 

Dependence Upon a Specific Rare 

Habitat Type and Inability To Disperse 

This species is known to occupy only 

Foskett Spring and Dace Spring. Due to 

the small size of Foskett Spring and the 

lack of connectivity to other aquatic 

habitat, there is no opportunity for the 

Foskett speckled dace to disperse away 

from stress, habitat degradation, or 

disturbance factors. There are no 

streams or drainages or other aquatic 

connections that provide alternate 

habitat or allow for emigration. As noted 

previously in this proposed rule, the 

BLM created two new ponds connected 

to the outlet channel of Dace Spring, 

and the ODFW has introduced Foskett 

speckled dace into these ponds in an 

attempt to establish a refuge population. 

Restriction to a Small Geographic Area 

and Vulnerability to Stochastic Events 

The Foskett speckled dace is 

restricted to one small spring and has 

been translocated to two small, 

constructed ponds at an adjacent spring. 

The available open-water habitat at 

Foskett Spring is naturally limited, and 

encroaching aquatic vegetation 

periodically limits suitable habitat. 

However, removing sediments and 

vegetation to increase open-water 

habitat is a proven conservation 

measure that results in a significant 

increase in fish abundance. Because of 

its restricted natural distribution and 

dependence on a single water source, 

the Foskett speckled dace is more 

vulnerable to threats that may occur 

than species that are more widely 

distributed. While our proposal to delist 

Foskett speckled dace is not dependent 

on the existence of a second population, 

the redundancy of a second population 

of Foskett speckled dace, should it 

prove viable over the long term, 

increases the resiliency of the species 

and may reduce vulnerability to 

stochastic events and any future threats 

that may appear on the landscape. 

Additionally, the CMP provides for 

management of Foskett Spring and Dace 

Spring areas for the long-term 

conservation of the Foskett speckled 

dace. Although it is difficult to plan for 

and address catastrophic events, 

quarterly site visits and habitat and 

population surveys conducted regularly 

will facilitate the timely detection of 

changes to the habitat and as well as 

other unforeseen future threats. 

Effects of Climate Change 

We also analyzed the effects of 

changing climate to the Foskett speckled 

dace and its habitat. The terms 

‘‘climate’’ and ‘‘climate change’’ are 

defined by the Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change (IPCC). ‘‘Climate’’ 

refers to the mean and variability of 

different types of weather conditions 

over time, with 30 years being a typical 

period for such measurements, although 

shorter or longer periods also may be 

used (IPCC 2007, p. 78). The term 

‘‘climate change’’ thus refers to a change 

in the mean or variability of one or more 

measures of climate (e.g., temperature or 

precipitation) that persists for an 

extended period, typically decades or 

longer, whether the change is due to 

natural variability, human activity, or 

both (IPCC 2007, p. 78). Changes in 


rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 3 / Thursday, January 4, 2018 / Proposed Rules 487 

climate can have direct or indirect 

effects on species, may be positive, 

neutral, or negative, and they may 

change over time, depending on the 

species and other relevant 

considerations such as the effects of 

interactions of climate with other 

variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation) 

(IPCC 2007, pp. 8–14, 18–19). In our 

analyses, we used our expert judgment 

to weigh relevant information, including 

uncertainty, in considering the effects of 

climate change on the Foskett speckled 

dace. 

Global climate projections are 

informative and, in some cases, the only 

or the best scientific information 

available for us to use. However, 

projected changes in climate and related 

impacts can vary substantially across 

and within different regions of the 

world (IPCC 2007, pp. 8–12). Therefore, 

we use ‘‘downscaled’’ projections when 

they are available and have been 

developed through appropriate 

scientific procedures because such 

projections provide higher-resolution 

information that is more relevant to 

spatial scales used for analyses of a 

given species (see Glick et al. 2011, pp. 

58–61, for a discussion of downscaling). 

Downscaled projections were 

available for our analysis of the Foskett 

speckled dace from the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) (https://www2.usgs.gov/ 

climate_landuse/clu_rd/nccv/ 

viewer.asp). The National Climate 

Change Viewer is based on the mean of 

30 models which can be used to predict 

changes in air temperature for the 

Warner Lakes basin in Lake County, 

Oregon. The models predict an increase 

in the mean maximum air temperature 

of 3.2 °F (1.8 °C) and an increase in the 

mean annual minimum air temperature 

of 3.1 °F (1.7 °C) in the 25-year period 

from 2025 to 2049. Mean precipitation 

is not predicted to change, but annual 

snow accumulation is predicted to 

decrease by 0.4 in (10.16 millimeters 

(mm)) during the same period. 

Over the ensuing 25-year period from 

2050 to 2074, the mean annual 

maximum air temperature is predicted 

to increase by 4.9 degrees °F (2.7 °C), 

and the change in mean annual 

minimum air temperature is predicted 

to increase by 4.3 °F (2.4 °C). The 2050 

to 2074 model predicts no change in the 

mean annual precipitation and annual 

snow accumulation is predicted to 

decrease by 0.4 in (9.6 mm) for the 

Warner Lakes basin (Alder and Hostetler 

2013, entire). 

Increase in the ambient air 

temperature may cause slight warming 

of Foskett Spring surface water. This 

may reduce the overall amount of 

habitat available for Foskett speckled 

dace due to an increase in water 

temperatures, especially at the lower 

end of the outlet stream and marsh 

habitat; however, Foskett speckled dace 

prefer the spring and pool habitats 

through the stream portion of the outlet 

channel. Changes to precipitation, 

aquifer recharge, or vegetative 

community around Foskett Spring as a 

result of climate change would not 

likely have an impact on Foskett 

speckled dace. The occupied habitat is 

fed from a spring that has a fairly 

consistent temperature of approximately 

65 °F (18 °C), and the vegetative 

community is not likely to change from 

the predicted temperature increases. 

Summary of Factor E 

The original listing rule in 1985 (50 

FR 12302; March 28, 1985) identified 

introduction of exotic fishes as a 

potential threat. However, in over 30 

years of monitoring, no exotic fishes 

have been detected, and there is no 

evidence of attempts to introduce exotic 

fish species. Other potential threats 

such as small population size, 

dependence on a specific or rare habitat 

type, the inability to disperse, 

restriction to a small geographic area, 

vulnerability to stochastic events, and 

climate change also have been assessed 

and determined to be minimal. Based on 

the best available information, we 

conclude that other natural or manmade 

factors do not constitute a substantial 

threat to the Foskett speckled dace now 

or in the foreseeable future. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Together, the factors discussed above 

could result in cumulative impacts to 

the Foskett speckled dace. For example, 

effects of cattle grazing directly on the 

habitat in combination with mechanical 

disturbances could result in a greater 

overall impact to Foskett speckled dace 

habitat. Although the types, magnitude, 

or extent of cumulative impacts are 

difficult to predict, we are not aware of 

any combination of factors that have not 

already been, or would not be, 

addressed through ongoing conservation 

measures that are expected to continue 

post-delisting and into the future, as 

described above. The best scientific and 

commercial data available indicate that 

the species is relatively abundant, and 

that the factors are not currently 

resulting, nor are they anticipated to 

cumulatively result, in reductions in 

Foskett speckled dace numbers and/or 

to the species’ habitat. 

Proposed Determination of Species 

Status 

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

and its implementing regulations at 50 

CFR part 424, set forth the procedures 

for determining whether a species is an 

endangered species or threatened 

species and should be included on the 

Federal Lists of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants (listed). 

The Act defines an endangered species 

as any species that is ‘‘in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range’’ and a threatened 

species as any species ‘‘that is likely to 

become endangered throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range within 

the foreseeable future.’’ 

On July 1, 2014, we published a final 

policy interpreting the phrase 

‘‘significant portion of its range’’ (SPR) 

(79 FR 37578). In our policy, we 

interpret the phrase ‘‘significant portion 

of its range’’ in the Act’s definitions of 

‘‘endangered species’’ and ‘‘threatened 

species’’ to provide an independent 

basis for listing a species in its entirety; 

thus there are two situations (or factual 

bases) under which a species would 

qualify for listing: A species may be in 

danger of extinction or likely to become 

so in the foreseeable future throughout 

all of its range; or a species may be in 

danger of extinction or likely to become 

so throughout a significant portion of its 

range. If a species is in danger of 

extinction throughout an SPR, it, the 

species, is an ‘‘endangered species.’’ 

The same analysis applies to 

‘‘threatened species.’’ 

Our final policy addresses the 

consequences of finding a species is in 

danger of extinction in an SPR, and 

what would constitute an SPR. The final 

policy states that (1) if a species is found 

to be endangered or threatened 

throughout a significant portion of its 

range, the entire species is listed as an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species, respectively, and the Act’s 

protections apply to all individuals of 

the species wherever found; (2) a 

portion of the range of a species is 

‘‘significant’’ if the species is not 

currently endangered or threatened 

throughout all of its range, but the 

portion’s contribution to the viability of 

the species is so important that, without 

the members in that portion, the species 

would be in danger of extinction, or 

likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future, throughout all of its range; (3) 

the range of a species is considered to 

be the general geographical area within 

which that species can be found at the 

time the Service or the National Marine 

Fisheries Service makes any particular 

status determination; and (4) if a 

vertebrate species is endangered or 

threatened throughout an SPR, and the 

population in that significant portion is 

a valid DPS, we will list the DPS rather 


rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
488 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 3 / Thursday, January 4, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

than the entire taxonomic species or 

subspecies. 

The SPR policy is applied to all status 

determinations, including analyses for 

the purposes of making listing, 

delisting, and reclassification 

determinations. The procedure for 

analyzing whether any portion is an 

SPR is similar, regardless of the type of 

status determination we are making. 

The first step in our assessment of the 

status of a species is to determine its 

status throughout all of its range. 

Depending on the status throughout all 

of its range, we will subsequently 

examine whether it is necessary to 

determine its status throughout a 

significant portion of its range. If we 

determine that the species is in danger 

of extinction, or likely to become so in 

the foreseeable future, throughout all of 

its range, we list the species as an 

endangered (or threatened) species and 

no SPR analysis will be required. The 

same factors apply whether we are 

analyzing the species’ status throughout 

all of its range or throughout a 

significant portion of its range. 

As described in our policy, once the 

Service determines that a ‘‘species’’— 

which can include a species, 

subspecies, or distinct population 

segment (DPS)—meets the definition of 

‘‘endangered species’’ or ‘‘threatened 

species,’’ the species must be listed in 

its entirety and the Act’s protections 

applied consistently to all individuals of 

the species wherever found (subject to 

modification of protections through 

special rules under sections 4(d) and 

10(j) of the Act). 

Thus, the first step in our assessment 

of the status of a species is to determine 

its status throughout all of its range. 

Depending on the status throughout all 

of its range, we will subsequently 

examine whether it is necessary to 

determine its status throughout a 

significant portion of its range. Under 

section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we determine 

whether a species is an endangered 

species or threatened species because of 

any of the following: (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 five factors apply 

whether we are analyzing the species’ 

status throughout all of its range or 

throughout a significant portion of its 

range. 

Foskett Speckled Dace—Determination 

of Status Throughout All of Its Range 

We conducted a review of the status 

of Foskett speckled dace and assessed 

the five factors to evaluate whether 

Foskett speckled dace is in danger of 

extinction, or likely to become so in the 

foreseeable future, throughout all of its 

range. We found that, with periodic 

management, Foskett speckled dace 

populations are persistent but cyclical 

within a range of 751 to 24,888 

individuals over the last decade (Table 

1). During our analysis, we found that 

impacts believed to be threats at the 

time of listing are either not as 

significant as originally anticipated or 

have been eliminated or reduced since 

listing, and we do not expect any of 

these conditions to substantially change 

post-delisting and into the foreseeable 

future, nor do we expect the effects of 

climate change to affect this species. 

The finalization of the CMP 

acknowledges the ‘‘conservationreliant’’ nature of Foskett speckled dace 

and the need for continued management 

of the habitat at Foskett Spring and 

affirms the BLM, ODFW, and Service 

will continue to carry out long-term 

management actions. Long-term 

management actions and elimination 

and reduction of threats apply to all 

populations of the species, such that 

both populations are secure. 

We conclude that the previously 

recognized impacts to the Foskett 

speckled dace no longer are a threat to 

the species. In order to make this 

conclusion, we analyzed the five threat 

factors used in making Endangered 

Species Act listing (and delisting) 

decisions. 

Foskett Speckled Dace––Determination 

of Status Throughout a Significant 

Portion of Its Range 

Because we determined that Foskett 

speckled dace is not in danger of 

extinction or likely to become so in the 

foreseeable future throughout all of its 

range, we will consider whether there 

are any significant portions of its range 

in which the species is in danger of 

extinction or likely to become so. To 

undertake this analysis, we first identify 

any portions of the species’ range that 

warrant further consideration. The range 

of a species can theoretically be divided 

into portions in an infinite number of 

ways. To identify only those portions 

that warrant further consideration, we 

determine whether there are any 

portions of the species’ range: (1) That 

may be ‘‘significant,’’ and (2) where the 

species may be in danger of extinction 

or likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future. We emphasize that answering 

these questions in the affirmative is not 

equivalent to a determination that the 

species should be listed—rather, it is a 

step in determining whether a moredetailed analysis of the issue is 

required. 

If we identify any portions (1) that 

may be significant and (2) where the 

species may be in danger of extinction 

or likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future, we conduct a more thorough 

analysis to determine whether both of 

these standards are indeed met. The 

determination that a portion that we 

have identified does meet our definition 

of significant does not create a 

presumption, prejudgment, or other 

determination as to whether the species 

is in danger of extinction or likely to 

become so in the foreseeable future in 

that identified SPR. We must then 

analyze whether the species is in danger 

of extinction or likely to become so in 

the SPR. To make that determination, 

we use the same standards and 

methodology that we use to determine 

if a species is in danger of extinction or 

likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future throughout all of its range (but 

applied only to the portion of the range 

now being analyzed). 

We evaluated the range of the Foskett 

speckled dace to determine if any area 

may be significant. The Foskett speckled 

dace is endemic to Foskett Spring in the 

Warner Basin. The historical known 

natural range of the Foskett speckled 

dace is limited to Foskett Spring. At the 

time of listing in 1985, Foskett speckled 

dace also occurred at nearby Dace 

Spring, located approximately one-half 

mile south of Foskett Spring, where 

translocation of specimens from Foskett 

Spring was initiated in 1979. Because of 

its narrow range limited to two springs 

within half mile of each other, and 

because speckled dace currently 

occupying Dace Spring originated from 

translocations from Foskett Spring, we 

find that the species is comprised of is 

a single, population and there are no 

logical biological divisions delineating 

portions of the range. For this reason, 

we did not identify any portions that 

may be significant because of natural or 

biological divisions indicating 

biological or conservation importance. 

A key part of identifying portions 

appropriate for further analysis is 

whether the threats are geographically 

concentrated. If a species is not in 

danger of extinction or likely to become 

so in the foreseeable future throughout 

all of its range and the threats to the 

species are essentially uniform 

throughout its range, then there is no 

basis on which to conclude that the 

species may be in danger of extinction 

or likely to become so in the foreseeable 


rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 3 / Thursday, January 4, 2018 / Proposed Rules 489 

future in any portion of its range. 

Therefore, we also examined whether 

any threats are geographically 

concentrated in some way that would 

indicate the species may be in danger of 

extinction, or likely to become so, in a 

particular area. We conclude that none 

of them are concentrated in any 

particular area of the species’ range. 

Although some of the factors we 

evaluated in the Summary of Factors 

Affecting the Species section above 

occur in specific habitat types (i.e. the 

spring pool, stream habitat, and marsh 

habitat), the factors affecting the Foskett 

speckled dace occur at similarly low 

levels throughout its range and would 

affect all individuals of the population. 

Additionally, because the species acts as 

a single population, no portion is likely 

to have a different status or be 

differently affected by threats than any 

other portion or than that of the species 

throughout all of its range. Therefore, 

even if Foskett Spring and the nearby 

Dace Spring were considered to be 

separate portions of the species’ range, 

no threats or their effects are sufficiently 

concentrated to indicate the species may 

be in danger of extinction, or likely to 

become so in either area. As noted 

earlier in this rule, our proposal to delist 

Foskett speckled dace is not dependent 

on establishment of a refuge population 

at Dace Spring. However, the 

redundancy of a second population of 

Foskett speckled dace at Dace Spring, 

should it prove viable over the long 

term, provides increased resiliency to 

the species’ overall status and may 

reduce vulnerability to stochastic events 

and any future threats that may appear 

on the landscape. For these reasons, we 

conclude that the species is not in 

danger of extinction, or likely to become 

so, throughout a significant portion of 

its range. 

Conclusion 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to the Foskett 

speckled dace. The threats that led to 

the species being listed under the Act 

(primarily the species’ extremely 

restricted and vulnerable habitat which 

was being modified; Factor A) have 

been removed or ameliorated by the 

actions of multiple conservation 

partners over the past 30 years; these 

include securing the property and 

developing long-term management 

strategies to ensure that appropriate 

habitat is maintained. Given various 

authorities that enabled the three 

cooperating agencies to enter into the 

Foskett Speckled Dace CMP, and the 

long record of engagement and proactive 

conservation actions implemented by 

the three cooperating agencies over a 30- 

year period, we expect conservation 

efforts will continue to support a 

healthy viable population of the Foskett 

speckled dace post-delisting and into 

the foreseeable future. Because the 

species is not in danger of extinction 

now or in the foreseeable future 

throughout all of its range or any 

significant portion of its range, the 

species does not meet the definition of 

an endangered species or threatened 

species. We conclude the Foskett 

speckled dace no longer requires the 

protection of the Act, and, therefore, we 

are proposing to remove it from the 

Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife. 

Effects of This Proposed Rule 

This proposal, if made final, would 

revise 50 CFR 17.11(h) by removing the 

Foskett speckled dace from the Federal 

List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife. Accordingly, we would also 

remove the Foskett speckled dace from 

the rule promulgated under section 4(d) 

of the Act at 50 CFR 17.44(j). The 

prohibitions and conservation measures 

provided by the Act, particularly 

through sections 7 and 9, would no 

longer apply to this species. Federal 

agencies would no longer be required to 

consult with the Service under section 

7 of the Act in the event that activities 

they authorize, fund, or carry out may 

affect the Foskett speckled dace. No 

critical habitat has been designated for 

Foskett speckled dace, so there would 

be no effect to designated critical 

habitat. State laws related to the Foskett 

speckled dace would remain in place 

and be enforced and would continue to 

provide protection for this species. 

Post-Delisting Monitoring 

Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires the 

Secretary of the Interior, through the 

Service and in cooperation with the 

States, to implement a system to 

monitor for not less than 5 years for all 

species that have been recovered and 

delisted. The purpose of this 

requirement is to develop a program 

that detects the failure of any delisted 

species to sustain populations without 

the protective measures provided by the 

Act. If, at any time during the 

monitoring period, data indicate that 

protective status under the Act should 

be reinstated, we can initiate listing 

procedures, including, if appropriate, 

emergency listing. 

A draft PDM plan has been developed 

for the Foskett speckled dace, building 

on and continuing the research that was 

conducted during the listing period. The 

draft PDM plan will be peer reviewed by 

specialists and available for public 

comment upon the publication of this 

proposed rule. Public and peer review 

comments submitted in response to the 

draft PDM plan will be addressed 

within the body of the plan and 

summarized in an appendix to the plan. 

The draft PDM plan was developed by 

the Service and ODFW. The draft PDM 

plan consists of: (1) A summary of the 

species’ status at the time of proposed 

delisting; (2) an outline of the roles of 

PDM cooperators; (3) a description of 

monitoring methods; (4) an outline of 

the frequency and duration of 

monitoring; (5) an outline of data 

compilation and reporting procedures; 

and (6) a definition of thresholds or 

triggers for potential monitoring 

outcomes and conclusions of the PDM. 

The draft PDM plan proposes to 

monitor Foskett speckled dace 

populations following the same 

sampling protocol used by the ODFW 

prior to delisting. Monitoring would 

consist of two components: Foskett 

speckled dace distribution and 

abundance, and potential adverse 

changes to Foskett speckled dace habitat 

due to environmental or anthropogenic 

factors. The PDM would continue for 9 

years, which would begin after the final 

delisting rule is published. Monitoring 

through this time period would allow us 

to address any possible negative effects 

to the Foskett speckled dace. 

The draft PDM plan identifies 

measurable management thresholds and 

responses for detecting and reacting to 

significant changes in the Foskett 

speckled dace’s protected habitat, 

distribution, and persistence. If declines 

are detected equaling or exceeding these 

thresholds, the Service, in combination 

with other PDM participants, will 

investigate causes of these declines, 

including considerations of habitat 

changes, substantial human persecution, 

stochastic events, or any other 

significant evidence. The result of the 

investigation will be to determine if the 

Foskett speckled dace warrants 

expanded monitoring, additional 

research, additional habitat protection, 

or relisting as a threatened or 

endangered species under the Act. If 

relisting the Foskett speckled dace is 

warranted, emergency procedures to 

relist the species may be followed, if 

necessary, in accordance with section 

4(b)(7) of the Act. 

Required Determinations 

Clarity of the Rule 

We are required by Executive Orders 

12866 and 12988 and by the 

Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 

1998, to write all rules in plain 


rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
490 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 3 / Thursday, January 4, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

language. This means that each rule we 

publish must: 

(a) Be logically organized; 

(b) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(c) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(d) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(e) Use lists and tables wherever 

possible. 

If you feel that we have not met these 

requirements, send us comments by one 

of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To 

better help us revise the rule, your 

comments should be as specific as 

possible. For example, you should tell 

us the names of the sections or 

paragraphs that are unclearly written, 

which sections or sentences are too 

long, the sections where you feel lists or 

tables would be useful, etc. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

We have determined that 

environmental assessments and 

environmental impact statements, as 

defined under the authority of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not 

be prepared in connection with 

regulations pursuant to section 4(a) of 

the Act. We published a notice outlining 

our reasons for this determination in the 

Federal Register on October 25, 1983 

(48 FR 49244). 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments (59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175, and the Department of the 

Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. In 

accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 

of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act), we readily acknowledge 

our responsibilities to work directly 

with Tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

Tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to Tribes. 

We do not believe that any Tribes will 

be affected by this rule. However, we 

have contacted the Burns Paiute Tribe to 

coordinate with them regarding the 

proposed rule. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this proposed rule is available at 

http://www.regulations.gov or upon 

request from the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Authors 

The primary authors of this proposed 

rule are staff members of the Service’s 

Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we hereby propose to 

amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter 

I, title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, as set forth below: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

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

1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise 

noted. 

§ 17.11 [Amended] 

■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by removing the 

entry for ‘‘Dace, Foskett speckled’’ 

under FISHES from the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 

§ 17.44 [Amended] 

■ 3. Amend § 17.44(j) by: 

■ a. Removing the words ‘‘and Foskett 

speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus 

subspecies)’’ from the introductory text; 

and 

■ b. In paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2), 

removing the word ‘‘these’’ in both 

places it appears and adding in its place 

the word ‘‘this’’. 

Dated: November 15, 2017. 

James W. Kurth, 

Deputy Director for U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Exercising the Authority of the 

Director for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–28465 Filed 1–3–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2017–0094; 

4500030113] 

RIN 1018–BC52 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Endangered Species 

Status for Barrens Topminnow 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

list the Barrens topminnow (Fundulus 

julisia), a freshwater fish from 

Tennessee, as an endangered species 

under the Endangered Species Act (Act). 

If we finalize this rule as proposed, it 

would extend the Act’s protections to 

this species. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

March 5, 2018. Comments submitted 

electronically using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, 

below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. 

Eastern Time on the closing date. We 

must receive requests for public 

hearings, in writing, at the address 

shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT by February 20, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter FWS–R4–ES–2017–0094, which is 

the docket number for this rulemaking. 

Then, in the Search panel on the left 

side of the screen, under the Document 

Type heading, click on the Proposed 

Rules link to locate this document. You 

may submit a comment by clicking on 

‘‘Comment Now!’’ 

(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

or hand-delivery to: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: FWS–R4–ES–2017– 

0094, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls 

Church, VA 22041–3803. 

We request that you send comments 

only by the methods described above. 

We will post all comments on http://

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see Public 

Comments, below, for more 

information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Jennings, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Tennessee Ecological Services 

Field Office, 446 Neal Street, 


rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with PROPOSALS