Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Foskett Speckled Dace From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, 48290-48308 [2019-19850]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 178 (Friday, September 13, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48290-48308]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-19850]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS), are 
removing 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 (Act), as amended.

DATES: This rule is effective October 15, 2019.

ADDRESSES: This final rule, the post-delisting monitoring plan, and 
supporting documents including the Cooperative Management Plan are 
available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. 
FWS-R1-ES-2017-0051, or at https://ecos.fws.gov. In addition, the 
supporting file for this final rule will be available for public 
inspection by appointment, during normal business hours, at: U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, 2600 SE 98th 
Avenue, Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266; telephone: 503-231-6179.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Henson, State Supervisor, Oregon 
Fish and Wildlife Office, 2600 SE 98th Avenue, Suite 100, Portland, OR 
97266; telephone: 503-231-6179. If you use a

[[Page 48291]]

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 warrants 
protection through listing if it is endangered or threatened. 
Conversely, a species may be removed from the Federal List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (List) if the Act's protections are 
determined to be no longer required based on recovery, original data 
error, or extinction. Removing a species from the List can be completed 
only by issuing a rule. This rule finalizes the removal of the Foskett 
speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus ssp.) from the List due to recovery, 
as proposed on January 4, 2018 (83 FR 475).
    The basis for our action. 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 (USFWS 1998): (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. We consider the Foskett speckled dace to be a 
conservation-reliant species, which we define in this case as a species 
that has generally met recovery criteria but requires continued active 
management to sustain the species and associated habitat in a recovered 
condition (see Scott et al. 2010, entire), given that the Foskett 
speckled dace 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 Cooperative 
Management Plan (CMP; USFWS et al. 2015), and are committed to the 
continuing long-term management of this species.
    Peer review and public comment. We evaluated the species' needs, 
current conditions, and future conditions to support our proposed rule. 
We sought comments from independent specialists to ensure that our 
determination is based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and 
analyses. We invited these peer reviewers to comment on the draft post-
delisting monitoring plan. We considered all comments and information 
we received during the public comment period on the proposed rule to 
delist the Foskett speckled dace and the post-delisting monitoring plan 
when developing this final rule.

Previous Federal Actions

    In carrying out our responsibility to administer the Act, we 
maintain the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants in 
title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). 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).
    Our most recent 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.
    On January 4, 2018, we published a proposed rule in the Federal 
Register (83 FR 475) to delist the Foskett speckled dace on the basis 
of recovery. In that document, we requested information and comments 
from the public regarding the proposed rule and the draft post-
delisting monitoring plan for the Foskett speckled dace.

Species Description

    The Foskett speckled dace is in the family Cyprinidae (Girard 1857) 
and is represented by one population in Lake County, Oregon: A natural 
population that inhabits Foskett Spring on the west side of Coleman 
Lake, and an introduced subpopulation at nearby 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

    Typically, speckled dace 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). Multiple age classes of 
Foskett speckled dace are present at Foskett Spring and successful 
reproduction occurs annually (Sheerer and Jacobs 2009, p. 5). To 
describe the different habitat types occupied by Foskett speckled dace, 
Scheerer split the habitat types into categories. The four habitat 
types are defined as the (1) Spring Pool; (2) Spring Brook; (3) Tule 
Marsh; and (4) Cattail Marsh. Aside from 1997, Cattail Marsh supports 
few Foskett speckled dace; the small population size in the Cattail 
Marsh habitat is due to habitat encroachment (Scheerer et al. 2011, pp. 
6-7; Scheerer et al. 2016, p. 9). Most of the Cattail Marsh habitat is 
outside the fence protecting Foskett Spring habitat, and the habitat is 
known to dry periodically (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998, p. 14). 
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 Dace Spring, a smaller spring located approximately 0.5 
miles (mi; 0.8 kilometers (km)) south of Foskett 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

[[Page 48292]]

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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13SE19.018

    Given that both Foskett and Dace springs were historically below 
the surface elevation 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 create a subpopulation (see Abundance, below).

Habitat

    Foskett Spring is a small, natural thermal artesian 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; 
Sammel and Craig 1981, p. 113). Foskett Spring is a cool-water thermal 
spring with temperatures recorded at a constant 64.8 degrees Fahrenheit 
([deg]F) (18.2 degrees Celsius ([deg]C)) (Scheerer and Jacobs 2009, p. 
5). The spring water is clear, and the water flow rate is consistently 
less than 0.5 cubic feet (ft\3\) per second (0.01 cubic meters (m\3\) 
per second). The springhead pool has a loose sandy bottom and is 
heavily vegetated with aquatic plants. The ODFW estimated approximately 
864 square yards (yds\2\) (722 square meters (m\2\)) 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. 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 (Scheerer and Jacobs 2005, 
p. 7; 2007, p. 9; 2009, p. 5). Deeper water with moderate vegetative 
cover would

[[Page 48293]]

presumably be better habitat, judging from the habitats used by other 
speckled dace, although Dambacher et al. (1997, no pagination) noted 
that past habitat management to increase open water has been 
unsuccessful in the long run due to sediment infilling and regrowth of 
aquatic plants. To increase open-water habitat, the BLM and the Service 
worked together in 2009 constructing two ponds connected to the outlet 
channel of Dace Spring. To address the encroachment by aquatic 
vegetation at Foskett Spring, in 2013, the BLM reduced vegetation 
biomass by implementing a controlled burn in the surrounding marshes. 
In 2013 and 2014, the BLM hand-excavated 11 pools and increased the 
open-water habitat around Foskett Spring by 196 yds\2\ (164 m\2\) 
(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).
    The BLM initiated baseline water quality and vegetation monitoring 
at Foskett and Dace springs in 1987. Data collected on September 28, 
1988, documented that the two springs had similar water chemistry, 
temperature, and turbidity (Williams et al. 1990, p. 244). In 2013, the 
BLM reconfigured the inlet and outlet to the two ponds at Dace Spring, 
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, appears to be 
resilient (i.e., capable of withstanding natural variation in habitat 
conditions and weather as well as random events). General observations 
made during these surveys included the presence of multiple age-classes 
and the presence of young-of-the-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 
open-water 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 (see Table 1, below).
    Abundance declined substantially from 1997 through 2012, a period 
when aquatic plants substantially expanded into open-water habitats 
(Scheerer et al. 2016, p. 9). ODFW attributed the higher population 
estimates from 2013 through 2015 to habitat management that increased 
open water (see below); during these years most fish were found in 
these 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. The project entailed excavating 
approximately 300 cubic yards (yds\2\) (251 m\2\) 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 confidence interval (CI): 3,878-4,782), a moderate 
increase in the estimate from the prior year (1,830) (P. Scheerer 2017, 
pers. comm.). As noted previously, and as illustrated in Table 1 below, 
the variability in abundance is not uncommon for dace species and 
appears, based on observations by ODFW biologists, to be driven in part 
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 abundance commensurate with available habitat in 
coming years.

                                   Table 1--Foskett Spring: Population Estimates With 95 Percent Confidence Intervals of Foskett Speckled Dace by Habitat Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Habitat type or location
             Model                Yr \1\ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------     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  NA \3\..................  NA \3\..................  NA \3\..................  NA \3\....................  1,728 (1,269-2,475)......  none.
                                    2012  633 (509-912)...........  589 (498-1024)..........  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 (10,665-16,616)...  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...................  no survey \4\.............  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.
\2\ Site 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.
\4\ The 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, 
below). Although an estimated 300 fish were documented in 1986 
(Williams et al. 1990, p. 243), this initial effort failed to establish 
a subpopulation at Dace Spring due to a lack of successful recruitment 
(Dambacher et al. 1997, no pagination).

[[Page 48294]]

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 for Foskett speckled dace. Table 2 summarizes 
population estimates, translocations, and habitat management at Dace 
Spring (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; Monzyk et al. 2018, p. 10).

                   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 two
                                                                                          pools.
2010.................................  no estimate............  49.....................  none.
2011.................................  34.....................  75.....................  none.
                                       (11-36)................
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 (3,470-58,479)    none...................  none.
                                        \3\.
2018.................................  1,924 (1,890-1,968)....  none...................  none.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No confidence interval calculated.
\2\ In 2012, there were a known total of 13 individuals.
\3\ The very large 2017 estimate lacked precision (reflected in the large 95-percent confidence interval) due to
  a likely biased estimator of capture probabilities used for small fish that year (F. Monzyk 2018, pers.
  comm.).

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 (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.

[[Page 48295]]

    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 spring habitat of the 
Foskett speckled dace 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 below under Summary of Factors 
Affecting the Species. The recovery plan outlines three recovery 
criteria (summarized below) 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. 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 https://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 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. This parcel of land was acquired by 
the BLM 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 (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, as well as the protections afforded to 
Foskett and Dace springs from public ownership, are supported by the 
BLM's involvement as a cooperating agency in the development and 
implementation of the CMP that was agreed to, finalized, and signed by 
the BLM in August 2015 (USFWS et al. 2015). The BLM's official 
commitment to carry out the CMP demonstrates that Criterion 1 has been 
met.
    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, the 
few wells that exist in the Warner Valley are unlikely to impact 
Foskett or Dace springs. Recovery Criterion 1 addresses listing factor 
A (present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of 
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 BLM, ODFW, and Service 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). The 
CMP has no termination date.
    Although the CMP is a voluntary agreement among the three 
cooperating agencies, we anticipate the plan will be implemented into 
the foreseeable future for the following 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. Under the 
auspices of the CMP, 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 (yds\2\) (251 m\2\) 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 ODFW to conduct 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 2005, 2007, and 2009 at Foskett Spring, and in 2015, 2016, and 2017 
to conduct population estimates in both Foskett and Dace springs.

[[Page 48296]]

    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. ``Special Status'' 
species for the BLM includes sensitive, proposed for listing, 
threatened, and endangered species. When delisted, the Foskett speckled 
dace would still be considered a ``Special Status'' species, as it 
meets the criteria to be ``sensitive'' for the BLM. According to the 
BLM's Criteria for determining FS R6 and OR/WA BLM Sensitive and 
Strategic Species (July 13, 2015), all federally delisted species that 
are suspected or documented on BLM or U.S. Forest Service lands are 
considered ``sensitive'' for the duration of their delisting monitoring 
plan unless the species meets some of the other criteria for being 
``sensitive.'' In this case, being a State/Oregon Biodiversity 
Information Center (ORBIC) rank 1 species, with a Heritage program/
NatureServe rank of S1 puts the Foskett speckled dace firmly in the 
``sensitive'' category (R. Huff 2018, pers. comm.; ORBIC 2016, p. 5). 
Special Status species lists and criteria are updated and transmitted 
to the BLM Districts approximately every 3 years through the State 
Director, who then directs the Districts to use the new list (R. Huff 
2018, pers. comm.). The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 
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 if the species is removed 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. 1531 et seq.), 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 742 d-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 (including abundance data, the effects of 
exclosure fences and vegetation encroachment, and vegetation management 
through controlled burns and pool expansion) (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 are at 
risk, 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 the Foskett speckled 
dace will be maintained and monitored adequately.
    Criterion 2 is further met by the establishment of a refuge 
subpopulation of Foskett speckled dace at nearby Dace Spring. As 
described earlier in this rule, dating back to 1979, multiple 
unsuccessful attempts were made to create a refuge for 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, has provided for adequate 
abundance of the species over time with reflected natural variability 
(see Table 2, above). Natural recruitment was documented in 2014, 2015, 
and 2016 (Scheerer et al. 2016, p. 6).
    Our decision to delist the Foskett speckled dace is not dependent 
on the existence of a subpopulation at Dace Spring. However, the 
existence of a subpopulation of Foskett speckled dace, should it be 
resilient over the long term, provides increased redundancy to the 
species' overall status and may reduce vulnerability to catastrophic 
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 the 
Foskett speckled dace to 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 mark-recapture abundance estimates for both Foskett and Dace 
springs, and also in 2018 only at Dace Spring. At Foskett Spring, 
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 at Foskett Spring suggested a 
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 Changes From the Proposed Rule

    We considered all comments and information we received during the 
comment period for the proposed rule to delist Foskett speckled dace 
(83 FR 475; January 4, 2018). This resulted in the following changes 
from the proposed rule in this final rule:
     We made some minor editorial changes to the document.
     Based on a request for clarification regarding our 
discussion of open-water habitat and population size, we replaced the 
word ``variability'' with the word ``abundance'' in one sentence (at 
the end of the Abundance discussion, above).
     Based on a comment on the uncertainty regarding the 
contribution of the Dace Spring population to the overall status of the 
species, we revised our discussion of the Dace Spring population (at 
the end of the ``Small Population Size'' discussion under Factor E in 
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species, below).
     Based on comments that the ODFW study only shows an 
observed response of Foskett speckled dace abundance to increased open 
water and not a direct correlation between the two variables, we have 
removed the reference to a direct response from this final rule. 
Although we present population information and discuss the relationship 
between population size and open-water habitat as suggested by ODFW 
(Scheerer et al. 2016, pp. 1, 9), our rationale for delisting Foskett 
speckled dace is based on the removal or reduction of threats to the 
species, not on population size.

[[Page 48297]]

     Based on comments regarding the potential response of the 
Foskett speckled dace to the effects of climate change, we added 
information to the climate change discussion under Factor E in Summary 
of Factors Affecting the Species, below.

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 one 
or more of the following reasons: (1) The species is extinct; (2) the 
species has recovered and is no longer endangered or threatened; 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'' refers to the general geographical 
area in which the species occurs at the time a status determination is 
made.
    The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future;'' we think 
it is reasonable to define the foreseeable future for the Foskett 
speckled dace as 30 years based upon the following analysis:
    Based on monitoring that began in 1997 by the ODFW, the Foskett 
speckled dace population is highly variable in size, and may be linked 
to the amount of open-water habitat (Scheerer et al. 2016, p. 8). The 
relationship between open-water habitat and population size has not 
been thoroughly studied for Foskett speckled dace, but the relationship 
has been shown in other types of narrow endemic fishes in spring type 
environments (Kodric-Brown and Brown 2007, entire). We have no 
information to suggest this apparent relationship would 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).
    The BLM has owned and managed the habitat at Foskett and Dace 
Springs since 1987, and ODFW has conducted monitoring of the Foskett 
speckled dace for 20 years. The BLM, ODFW, and Service are committed to 
long-term continued monitoring and implementation of conservation 
measures for the species through the CMP. Modeling of climate change 
impacts suggest little change in environmental conditions over the next 
30 years (through 2049) in the Warner Lakes Basin. Although we also 
looked at climate models that projected an additional 25 years into 
2074, we determined that the 30-year timeframe reflects climate change 
models that are relevant to the Foskett speckled dace and its habitat, 
as well as our ability to project land management decisions; therefore 
we think 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 abundance, and its extremely restricted and vulnerable 
habitat, which was being modified at that time. Potential habitat-
related threats that were identified in the final listing rule included 
groundwater pumping for irrigation, use of the area by livestock, 
channeling of the springs for agricultural purposes, and other 
mechanical modifications of the aquatic ecosystem. The vulnerability of 
the habitat was accentuated by its very small size and a water flow 
rate of less than 0.5 cubic feet (ft\3\) per second (0.01 cubic meters 
(m\3\) per second) (50 FR 12304; March 28, 1985).
Livestock Use and Mechanical Modification
    In listing the species, the Service noted that Foskett Spring was a 
livestock watering area and grazing occurred in the area, although the 
exact impact had not been determined. The Service indicated that 
uncontrolled trampling of the springs by livestock could probably have 
a negative effect on the aquatic ecosystem and livestock use above 
those existing at the time of listing would have a negative impact (50 
FR 12304 and 12305; March 28, 1985). 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 1985 
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, and protect any Foskett 
speckled dace in the springs.

[[Page 48298]]

While the exclusion of cattle likely improved water quality and habitat 
stability, it may also 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. The Foskett 
Spring was revisited in 1997, and 97 percent of the estimated 
population of Foskett speckled dace was located in a shallow open-water 
pool in a previously dry marsh outside of the exclosure fence 
(Dambacher et al. 1997, entire). The changed conditions noted at this 
site over time illustrate the natural variability in habitat conditions 
of this ephemeral 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. The 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). While the area outside the 
exclusion fence may provide habitat for Foskett speckled dace in the 
future, we do not view it as critical to the long-term persistence of 
the species. The primary habitat for the fish, and the area that has 
received recent habitat management to create open water, is within the 
enclosure.
    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 nearby 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, and use of the 
area by livestock remains below the level at the time of listing in 
1985. 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 minimal impact of the 
singular observation of unauthorized grazing within the enclosures and 
the commitment of quarterly monitoring of the site by BLM, we do not 
view grazing in the enclosure as a threat in the foreseeable future.
    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 high-quality habitat for the Foskett 
speckled dace.
    The ODFW recommended that restoration efforts to increase open-
water 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 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 
under Recovery Planning and Recovery Criteria, 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 portions of the Warner Basin using 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 (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

[[Page 48299]]

to 15,000 square feet (ft\2\) (92.90 to 1,393.55 square meters (m\2\)) 
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 within approximately 5 miles 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 
open-water habitat. The response of dace to these restoration efforts 
was remarkable, with the 2014 population estimated at 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 open-water 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 in 2009, and connected to the outlet channel of 
Dace Spring. 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 (confidence interval: 3,470-58,479) (Scheerer et. al. 2017, p. 
6), although the broad confidence limits infer low precision. The 2018 
estimate at Dace spring was 1,924 (confidence interval: 1,890-1,968) 
(Monzyk et al. 2018, p. 10). 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 subpopulation. Although results appear positive, it is 
premature to conclude if establishment of this refuge will be 
successful over the long term. While our decision to delist Foskett 
speckled dace is not dependent on establishment of a refuge, the 
resilience of a subpopulation at Dace Spring may provide increased 
redundancy to the species' overall status in the future by reducing 
vulnerability to catastrophic events.
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 
the Foskett speckled dace. The recent habitat enhancement work and the 
commitments made in the CMP provide assurance that minor oversight and 
continued habitat enhancement by the BLM and ODFW will allow the 
species to persist at abundance levels commensurate with available 
habitat. Although the CMP is voluntary, it is reasonable to conclude, 
for reasons summarized under Recovery Planning and Recovery Criteria, 
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, nor do we have 
information to suggest that it has become a threat since that time. 
Therefore, 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 1985 listing rule 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 
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.''

[[Page 48300]]

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). That 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 the 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 nonconsumptive 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.
    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.
    Additionally, though not a regulatory mechanism, the CMP, which was 
prepared jointly and signed by the BLM, ODFW, and Service, is a 
conservation measure that 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 under Recovery 
Planning and Recovery Criteria, above, identifies actions to be 
implemented by the BLM, ODFW, and Service 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.
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 those 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. 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 threats to the species absent protections under 
the Act.

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued 
Existence

    The 1985 listing rule 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 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 of the springs 
have occurred since the time of listing more than 30 years ago. As 
mentioned in the discussion of livestock grazing, sometime in 2014 or 
2015, a gate was illegally removed near the springs, but damage to 
Foskett and Dace springs' streambanks appeared inconsequential. The BLM 
replaced the gate and will continue to maintain the fence per their 
commitments outlined in the CMP (USFWS et al. 2015). The Foskett 
speckled dace is vulnerable to invasive or nonnative species (aquatic 
plants, invertebrates, or fish species). However,

[[Page 48301]]

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 exotic fish 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 (for 
information on how to access the CMP for further reference see 
ADDRESSES, above).
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 part due to these factors. This species had a 
very restricted natural range; the species 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 ft\3\ per second (0.01 m\3\ 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 open-water habitat by 150 percent, to 
approximately 358 yds\2\ (300 m\2\) (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 open-water 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, 2017, and 2018. 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.
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 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. Foskett 
speckled dace has persisted in this habitat, likely since the more 
recent pluvial period of the Pleistocene epoch 10,000 to 60,000 years 
ago.
    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 
potentially catastrophic events (such as vandalism, contaminants, or 
introduction of nonnative fish), 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 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change (IPCC) concluded that the evidence for warming of the global 
climate system is unequivocal (IPCC 2013, p. 3). Numerous long-term 
climate changes have been observed including changes in arctic 
temperatures and ice, widespread changes in precipitation amounts, 
ocean salinity, wind patterns, and aspects of extreme weather including 
droughts, heavy precipitation, and heat waves (IPCC 2013, p. 4). The 
general climate trend for North America includes increases in mean 
annual temperatures and precipitation and the increased likelihood of 
extreme weather events by the mid-21st century (IPCC 2014, pp. 1452-
1456). Changes in climate can have direct or indirect effects on 
species; may be positive, neutral, or negative; and 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

[[Page 48302]]

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 as of 2016 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 and precipitation for 
the Warner Lakes basin in Lake County, Oregon, for two of the emission 
scenarios, RCP4.5 and RCP8.5. Scenario RCP4.5 is a moderate emissions 
scenario (where atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are 
expected to equal approximately 650 parts per million (ppm) after the 
year 2100), and RCP8.5 is the most aggressive emissions scenario (in 
which greenhouse gases continue to rise unchecked through the end of 
the century) (Alder and Hostetler 2016, entire). At this time, there 
are no available climate projections on the persistence of springs into 
the future. For the 25-year period from 2025 to 2049, the model set 
shows an increase in the mean maximum air temperature of between 2.7 
[deg]F (1.6 [deg]C) (RCP4.5) and 3.2 [deg]F (1.8 [deg]C) (RCP8.5), and 
an increase in the mean annual minimum air temperature of between 2.5 
[deg]F (1.5 [deg]C) (RCP4.5) and 3.1 [deg]F (1.8 [deg]C) (RCP8.5). For 
both scenarios, mean precipitation is not predicted to change, but 
annual snow accumulation is predicted to decrease by 0.4 in (10.16 
millimeters (mm)). The model set also shows evaporative deficit over 
this 25 year period with changes projected in evaporation in the summer 
that may affect soil moisture for the vegetative community around the 
springs. However, the projected increase remains similar to current 
conditions and within the confidence intervals for the predicted change 
(Alder and Hostetler 2016, entire). Over the subsequent 25-year period 
from 2050 to 2074, the model set shows an increase in mean annual 
maximum air temperature of between 4.1 [deg]F (2.3 [deg]C) (RCP4.5) to 
5.9 [deg]F (3.3 [deg]C) (RCP8.5), and an increase in mean annual 
minimum air temperature of between 4.1 [deg]F (2.3 [deg]C) (RCP4.5) to 
6.1 [deg]F (3.4 [deg]C) (RCP8.5). For the 2050 to 2074 period, the 
model set shows no change in the mean annual precipitation for both 
scenarios, and shows a decrease in annual snow accumulation of between 
0.2 in (5.4 mm) (RCP4.5) to 0.3 in (7.1 mm) (RCP8.5) for the Warner 
Lakes basin (Alder and Hostetler 2016, entire).
    An 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 have persisted overtime 
in these springs located in a naturally variable ephemeral wetland 
system, and abundance data indicate Foskett speckled dace may have a 
preference for the spring and pool habitats through the stream portion 
of the outlet channel as shown in Table 1, as opposed to shallower 
marsh habitat that might be more impacted by evaporation.
    Furthermore, the occupied habitat for Foskett speckled dace is fed 
from a thermal artesian spring that has a fairly consistent temperature 
of approximately 65 [deg]F (18 [deg]C) and consistent flow. Springs 
have been identified as potential hydrologic refugia that may protect 
species from the effects of climate change (McLaughlin et al. 2017, p. 
2946). Springs have geologic features that are independent of climate, 
and their recharge is decoupled from their discharge; these features 
make them less sensitive to, or buffered from, changes in the local 
climate, including regional drought intensification (McLaughlin et al. 
2017, p. 2946; Cartwright et al. 2017, p. 16).
Summary of Factor E
    The 1985 listing rule identified introduction of exotic fishes and 
vandalism as potential threats. However, in over 30 years of 
monitoring, no exotic fishes have been detected, there is no evidence 
of attempts to introduce exotic fish species, and no vandalism has 
occurred beyond one singular incident of gate removal. 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 
experiences natural variably in abundance; the species has maintained 
abundance commensurate with available habitat; and the factors 
discussed above are not currently leading, nor are they anticipated to 
cumulatively lead, to reductions in Foskett speckled dace numbers and/
or reductions of the species' habitat.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In our proposed rule published on January 4, 2018 (83 FR 475), we 
requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the 
proposal by March 5, 2018. We also requested public comments on the 
draft post-delisting monitoring plan. We contacted appropriate Federal 
and State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other 
interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. We did 
not receive any requests for a public hearing. Newspaper notices 
inviting general public comment were published in the Lake County 
Examiner.
    During the comment period, we received 20 letters or statements 
directly addressing the proposed action. These included 4 comments from 
peer reviewers, 1 from the State, and 15 from the public. All comments 
are posted at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-
2017-0051. Nine of the public comments (including comments from the 
State) supported the proposed action to delist the Foskett speckled 
dace. Nine commenters did not state whether they support the decision 
or not. Five provided no relevant information related to Foskett 
speckled dace and our proposed action. The remaining two public 
commenters objected to the action to delist the Foskett speckled dace; 
however, neither provided substantive scientific information regarding 
the proposed delisting rule.
    We reviewed all comments we received from the peer reviewers and 
the public for substantive issues and new information regarding the 
Foskett speckled dace. Substantive comments received during the comment 
period are

[[Page 48303]]

addressed below and, where appropriate, incorporated directly into this 
final rule and the post-delisting monitoring plan.

Peer Review and Public Comments

    Section 4(b)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act states that the Secretary must 
give actual notice of a proposed regulation under section 4(a) to the 
State agency in each State in which the species is believed to occur, 
and invite the comments of such agency. Section 4(i) of the Act directs 
that the Secretary will submit to the State agency a written 
justification for his or her failure to adopt regulations consistent 
with the agency's comments or petition. We solicited and received 
comments from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). The 
ODFW supports our delisting of the Foskett speckled dace and has 
delisted Foskett speckled dace from their State endangered species 
list.
    Comment (1): One commenter stated that the Service should delay 
delisting in order to conduct additional monitoring.
    Our Response: Extensive habitat and population abundance surveys at 
Foskett and Dace springs have been regularly conducted since 2005 and 
as a result, we do not agree additional monitoring is necessary prior 
to delisting. These data contributed to our analysis of the five threat 
factors to the species and our decision to delist the species. We have 
determined the threats to Foskett speckled dace have been eliminated or 
reduced to the point that protection under the Act is no longer needed. 
Monitoring will continue after delisting as described in our post-
delisting monitoring (PDM) plan to confirm the maintenance of the 
species' recovered status and amelioration of threats.
    Comment (2): Two peer reviewers suggested we consider genetic 
analysis published in scientific journals (Ardren et al. 2009; Ardren 
et al. 2010; Hoekzema 2013; Hoekzema and Sidlauskas 2014) to discuss 
the current taxonomic status of the Foskett speckled dace.
    Our Response: We reviewed the information provided by the peer 
reviewers, and conclude that the genetic analysis supports the 
taxonomic status of the Foskett speckled dace currently and at the time 
of listing, specifically that the Service knowingly listed the Foskett 
speckled dace as an ``undescribed subspecies.'' We are not seeking a 
change in that status, but are delisting the entity as it is currently 
classified. Future genetic and taxonomic study may be conducted that 
may revise the fish's taxonomic classification. We are not pursuing a 
study to describe the Foskett speckled dace, but are making a decision 
to remove it from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife.
    Comment (3): Two peer reviewers and several commenters stated that 
actions to eliminate threats from physical habitat modification or 
water extraction have been implemented. Commenters also stated that the 
immediate threats have been adequately addressed, that the Foskett 
speckled dace is no longer at risk of extinction, and that criteria for 
delisting have been met or exceeded. Commenters noted that the CMP does 
not necessarily eliminate threats but provides guidance and actions to 
eliminate threats.
    Our Response: The Service agrees that the Foskett speckled dace has 
recovered due to conservation efforts of the BLM, ODFW, and Service and 
qualifies for removal from the Federal List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife. Conservation efforts by the BLM, specifically the 
acquisition and fencing of the property, have largely removed the 
threats from mechanical disturbance to the habitat by precluding 
livestock grazing. Any disturbance from machinery or drilling of wells 
has also either never materialized or would be subject to the BLM's 
evaluation and/or permitting now that this is land managed by the BLM. 
Additional conservation actions include the excavation of excess 
sediment and vegetation from the spring and outflow and the 
implementation of a cooperative management plan with the BLM, ODFW, and 
Service. In addition to providing guidance and actions to eliminate 
threats, the CMP articulates the agencies' commitment to implementing 
those actions.
    Comment (4): Two peer reviewers suggest we conduct a survey for 
internal and external parasites to assess risk from disease because the 
only evidence presented is lack of obvious external parasites. The 
reviewers suggest a basic necropsy should be undertaken by ODFW staff 
to be certain there are no underlying disease or parasite problems.
    Our Response: Our decision to delist the Foskett speckled dace is 
based on the removal or reduction of threats to the species identified 
at the time of listing, since the time of listing and in the 
foreseeable future. At no time has the Service had any information to 
indicate that disease may pose a threat to the Foskett speckled dace. 
Other studies of disease in fishes occupying nearby waters (in the 
Warner basin) have indicated common fish parasites and disease are 
present in low levels. These diseases are common in freshwater fishes. 
Therefore, as we do not have any information that disease or predation 
are a threat, we are not conducting a new study to detect disease. 
Based on observations and the best available information, we have 
determined it is unlikely parasites or disease represent a threat to 
the Foskett speckled dace now or in the foreseeable future.
    Comment (5): One peer reviewer commented that the proposed rule 
defines foreseeable future as 30 years. As such, the 9-year duration of 
the CMP does not match the identified need for monitoring, and after it 
concludes, it is possible that Factor D would again threaten the 
Foskett speckled dace.
    Our Response: We think the commenter is confusing the CMP 
(cooperative management plan) with the PDM (post-delisting monitoring 
plan). In our draft PDM that was available for public comment, we 
stated that the PDM would be in place for 9 years after delisting; 
however, the CMP does not have a termination date and will proceed well 
into the foreseeable future. Between the proposed and final PDM, we 
reassessed the duration of the plan and determined that reducing the 
duration of the PDM from 9 years to 5 years and eliminating consecutive 
year monitoring will help to minimize unnecessary handling of the fish 
and reduce risk to individuals. In addition, 5 years is an adequate 
monitoring period to ensure the species remains secure once delisted 
because the CMP will continue indefinitely following the PDM period. 
Monitoring may be increased during the PDM, depending on information 
needs and availability of funding. In the long term, it will be the 
responsibility of the BLM and ODFW to monitor and manage the species, 
and the strategy for this is detailed in the CMP, which does not have a 
termination date. As discussed under Summary of Factors Affecting the 
Species, 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, including 
Factor D, absent protections under the Act.
    Comment (6): One peer reviewer suggested the Service's conclusion 
that threats are minimal appears to be unwarranted. The commenter 
stated that the Foskett speckled dace currently meets at least two of 
the three criteria for rarity (narrow geographic range and narrow 
habitat requirements) and that

[[Page 48304]]

threats from vandalism and introduced species that were included in the 
1985 listing rule for the species have not changed substantially. The 
commenter further stated that most of the factors mentioned in the 2018 
proposed delisting (remoteness of the site, minimal visitation, and 
lack of connectivity to other water bodies) were equally true at the 
time of listing in 1985. The commenter refers to populations of other 
endangered species such as the Devil's Hole pupfish (Cyprinodon 
diabolis) that have been subjected to vandalism in recent memory (Rocha 
2016), despite similar legal protection and monitoring.
    Our Response: While rarity may increase risk to a species from an 
operative threat, rarity, in and of itself, does not represent a threat 
under the Act. The Foskett speckled dace is an endemic species that is 
naturally restricted in its distribution to a localized spring system. 
Introduced species and vandalism of the springs could represent a 
potential threat, but neither has been identified at Foskett Spring nor 
have these potential threats occurred during the more than 30 years 
since listing. Because of this, we believe it is reasonable to conclude 
the likelihood of these threats being realized is very low. There was a 
single instance of gate removal near the springs, but the BLM replaced 
the gate and committed in the 2015 CMP to monitor the gate to ensure 
its integrity. The management and protections provided by the BLM and 
ODFW will monitor these potential threats to the species now and into 
the foreseeable future and provide for actions to be taken should these 
threats be detected. Therefore, we have determined protection under the 
Act is no longer warranted for the Foskett speckled dace.
    Comment (7): One peer reviewer commented that the current existence 
of the refuge population at Dace Spring provides resilience and 
robustness, but the long-term stability of the Dace Spring population 
is unclear. The reviewer also stated that the introduction to Dace 
Spring has failed at least once before, but that if the current 
population proves to be viable, its existence would reduce risk to the 
Foskett Spring population from its inherent rarity.
    Our Response: We agree with the peer reviewer and have incorporated 
this information into this final rule (see ``Small Population Size'' 
under Factor E discussion, above). Although we acknowledge the refuge 
population at Dace Spring adds to the security of the population, it is 
not required, nor do we depend on it for our determination to remove 
the Foskett speckled dace from the Federal List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife.
    Comment (8): One peer reviewer stated that the CMP conflates the 
concept of effective population size (Ne) with census population size 
(Nc), which would indicate a low population size for Foskett speckled 
dace. The reviewer stated an effective population size of 500 or higher 
for the Foskett speckled dace would require a sustained census 
population size of at least 2,500 to 3,500 individuals. The reviewer 
also stated that this threshold of 500 should be corrected in the CMP, 
and genetic studies should calculate Ne as part of the proposed 
monitoring.
    Our Response: We think the commenter is confusing the CMP 
(cooperative management plan) with the PDM (post-delisting monitoring 
plan). Regarding the threshold of 500 fish, we are making the 
assumption, given what we know about the life history of the fish and 
size of the mesh in the minnow traps (the primary method to develop 
population estimates) that all fish captured are of reproductive age 
(age one or older, or Ne). We will add this specificity to the final 
PDM.
    Comment (9): We received several peer review comments regarding the 
suggested relationship between open-water habitat and abundance of the 
species. One commenter questioned whether the proposed rule's 
suggestion of a clear link between open-water habitat and population 
size of Foskett speckled dace was an overstatement of evidence and said 
there appears to be substantial natural variation in recruitment 
success and population size independent of the amount of open-water 
habitat. Some commenters pointed out that there is limited evidence to 
demonstrate all the drivers of the variable abundance exhibited by the 
species, and that population size may be a result of other habitat 
parameters such as annual weather changes. One commenter suggested that 
several decades' worth of data would be needed to establish statistical 
confidence in any relationship between open-water habitat and 
variability in abundance. Another commenter suggested that a 
correlation between open-water habitat and variability in abundance 
appeared to be stronger in the marsh habitats at Foskett Spring than in 
the pool.
    Our Response: Although we have observed a link between open-water 
habitat and population size based on surveys by ODFW, we acknowledge 
that a strict correlation between open-water habitat and population 
size has not been clearly established. However, we note that our 
decision to delist the Foskett speckled dace is not based on the 
management for open-water habitat or on population estimates; we based 
our decision on the removal or reduction of threats to the species 
identified at the time of listing (groundwater pumping for irrigation, 
use of the area by livestock, channeling of the springs for 
agricultural purposes, other mechanical modifications of the aquatic 
ecosystem, introduction of exotic fishes, and vandalism). We included 
discussion of population estimates as part of the healthy status of the 
population at the time we proposed delisting of the Foskett speckled 
dace. While not the basis for delisting, the observed increases in 
population documented by ODFW give the Service confidence that the 
habitat enhancement project conducted by the BLM will likely result in 
improved habitat conditions. The value of maintaining and/or increasing 
open-water habitat will continue to be assessed in the future by the 
BLM and ODFW to determine if additional habitat enhancement activities 
benefit the species post-delisting. The BLM and ODFW will use their 
discretion and authorities outlined in the CMP to continue conservation 
of the Foskett speckled dace into the future. In response to the 
commenters, we have removed the reference to a direct response of the 
species to open-water habitat from this rule and also clarified the 
difference between abundance estimate and variability in abundance (see 
Abundance, above).
    Comment (10): One commenter stated that it seems unwise to remove 
protection under the Act for this species. This commenter expressed 
concern that something could ``exterminate'' the fish before the 
Government or conservationists could react. They suggest that since the 
Foskett speckled dace lives in such a small area, with human activity, 
the Government should try to acquire and safeguard all of the fish's 
habitat and continue trying to establish new populations where the fish 
may have been found in the past. The commenter also stated that because 
the fish's habitat is so small, there should not be a lot of economic 
tradeoffs, and economic losses are acceptable to preserve the species.
    Our Response: The Service analyzed all the reasonably foreseeable 
threats to the species and did not find any threats that would 
``exterminate'' the Foskett speckled dace. The BLM acquired the land in 
1987, and has agreed, via the CMP, to continue management of the parcel 
of land on which Foskett Spring is located for the protection and

[[Page 48305]]

conservation of the species. The Foskett speckled dace is known to 
occur only in its native Foskett Spring and the nearby Dace Spring, 
into which it was transferred for conservation purposes. Therefore, it 
is already present in all of its historic habitat.
    Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires us to make status (i.e., 
listing, delisting, and reclassification) determinations based ``solely 
on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.'' 
The word ``solely'' was added in the 1982 amendments to the Act (Pub. 
L. 97-304, 96 Stat. 1411) to clarify that the determination of 
endangered or threatened status was intended to be made ``solely upon 
biological criteria and to prevent non-biological considerations from 
affecting such decisions.'' In making the clarification, Congress 
expressed concerns with the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act, Paperwork Reduction Act, and Executive Order 12291 potentially 
introducing economic and other factors into the basis for 
determinations under the Act (H.R. Rep. No. 97-567 at 19-20, May 17, 
1982). Therefore, we make status determinations based solely on 
biological considerations.
    The Service has the authority under the Act to emergency-list the 
species if threats re-emerge.
    Comment (11): One peer reviewer commented that the extent of 
available habitat is small and requires careful management and close 
monitoring to ensure that the Foskett speckled dace persists for the 
long term. The commenter cautioned against assuming major mechanical 
restoration of open pool habitat was always preferred, especially given 
things like unintended disturbance of other aspects of the habitat and 
related species, and that smaller scale, shovel-based habitat 
improvement should be considered.
    Our Response: The Foskett speckled dace is a narrow endemic with 
limited habitat. With the understanding that the species will require 
some habitat management and monitoring into the future, the Service 
entered into an agreement with the BLM and ODFW to ensure management 
actions take place for the benefit of the Foskett speckled dace. In 
order to allow maximum flexibility and responsiveness to conditions in 
future management of the species, the CMP is not restrictive with 
respect to the type of management actions required. Since the 1985 
listing of the Foskett speckled dace, the Service, BLM, and ODFW have 
been actively managing Foskett speckled dace habitat for the 
conservation of the species. Information learned from decades of 
management will inform the partners for optimizing future management 
decisions.
    Comment (12): One peer reviewer and several other commenters stated 
that climate change will have effects that could impact the shallow 
water habitat of the Foskett speckled dace. Concerns were noted 
regarding the potential increase of drought and drought intensity 
through increased evaporation rates and more erratic precipitation.
    Our Response: We assessed the potential effects from climate change 
using the most current science available, although at this time there 
are no available climate projections on the persistence of springs into 
the future. Downscaled climate models project an increase in the mean 
maximum air temperature of between 2.7 [deg]F (1.6 [deg]C) (RCP4.5) and 
3.2 [deg]F (1.8 [deg]C) (RCP8.5), and an increase in the mean annual 
minimum air temperature of between 2.5 [deg]F (1.5 [deg]C) (RCP4.5) and 
3.1 [deg]F (1.8 [deg]C) (RCP8.5) 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 mm) during this 
period. Although the higher temperatures may contribute to changes in 
summer evaporation affecting soil moisture for the vegetative community 
around the springs, the evaporative deficit is projected to remain 
similar to current conditions and within the confidence intervals for 
the predicted change (Alder and Hostetler 2013, entire).
    The thermal artesian springs that make up Foskett speckled dace 
habitat have a near constant temperature and flow. Springs have 
features that are independent of climate that make springs potential 
refugia for species from the effects of climate change (McLaughlin et 
al. 2017, p. 2946; Cartwright et al. 2017, p. 16). The springs are 
located in a wetland that is ephemeral by nature; the dace have 
persisted in the area despite conditions that are somewhat variable 
from year to year. Although dace have been found in shallower, marshy 
areas, the largest number of individuals have been observed in the 
deeper pool habitat. Through implementation of the CMP, the partners 
will continue to evaluate habitat conditions at Foskett and Dace 
springs and note where the dace are occurring. Future enhancements to 
optimize Foskett speckled dace habitat, in the pool areas and marsh 
areas, will be based on the best information available at the time.
    Comment (13): One commenter stated that this species only occurs at 
two springs in an arid area, and humans established the Dace Springs 
population. Both populations fluctuate. The commenter also states that 
neither population is secure and likely to become even less secure with 
increased climate change. The commenter opposes removing the Foskett 
speckled dace from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife.
    Our Response: The species is known as a ``narrow endemic,'' which 
means it exists in a very small range. While this small range may 
increase risk to a species from an operative threat, in and of itself, 
its limited range does not represent a threat under the Act. We have 
carefully analyzed the potential threats to the species including an 
analysis of the potential effects from climate change using the best 
information available. The Service has considered this condition in 
assessing the potential threat factors listed in section 4(a)(1) of the 
Act (see Summary of Factors Affecting the Species, above). Based on the 
best available scientific and commercial information, the Service has 
determined the threats identified in the 1985 listing rule are either 
not as significant as originally anticipated or have been eliminated or 
reduced since listing, and we no longer believe the species meets the 
definition of an endangered or a threatened species. See also response 
to Comment (12), above.
    Comment (14): One peer reviewer commented that it is reasonable to 
assume that population size is a function of available habitat and it 
is also a function of prior abundance and of carrying capacity, which 
can change within the same available habitat. There is not a 
sufficiently long time-series and appropriate analysis for 
understanding the Foskett speckled dace's responses to management 
intervention. Change in a population from one year to the next might be 
positive or negative. If there is an intervention with an anticipated 
positive effect, one can expect the variability to still be present but 
that the mean response will be positive. Ideally, such an evaluation is 
achieved through a time-series with a sufficient pre- and post-response 
period to evaluate the response over a variety of annual patterns.
    Our Response: We do not have information to show that population 
size is strictly a function of habitat at Foskett Spring. However, 
observations of other similar fish in similar habitats indicate that 
these fish are likely to increase in abundance with an increase in 
open-water habitat (Kodric-Brown and Brown 2007, entire). Our decision 
to delist the Foskett speckled dace is based on the removal or 
reduction of threats to the species. Despite this, we

[[Page 48306]]

have made some assumptions in managing the habitat for greater 
abundance of fish in the population. The Service is not conducting 
additional studies prior to removal of the Foskett speckled dace from 
the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. The future 
management and monitoring included in the CMP allows for flexibility in 
habitat management and adaptive management to benefit the long-term 
stability of the species.
    Comment (15): Several peer reviewers commented on the draft post-
delisting monitoring plan. These peer reviewers suggested monitoring 
of: (1) Groundwater in and around the vicinity of Foskett and Dace 
springs; (2) surface water quality; (3) water levels; (4) the extent of 
water; and (5) climatic conditions. In addition, one peer reviewer 
suggested a plan to evaluate stability of habitat conditions, 
sensitivity to climate or drought, and ultimately vulnerability.
    Our Response: Post-delisting monitoring is designed to monitor 
those threats identified at the time of listing and any additional 
threats we have identified during the species' 5-year status reviews. 
Since the time of listing in 1985, water level and quality have not 
been found to be adversely impacting the Foskett speckled dace, nor are 
they anticipated concerns relating to the future management of the 
species. The springs have been found to have near constant flow and 
temperature; water levels and temperature have been adequate for the 
species, and we anticipate they will continue to be into the future. 
Therefore, we did not revise the PDM plan in response to these 
comments.

Determination

Standard for Review

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining 
whether a species meets the definition of ``endangered species'' or 
``threatened species.'' The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a 
species that is ``in danger of extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range,'' and a ``threatened species'' as a 
species that is ``likely to become an endangered species within the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range.'' The Act requires that we determine whether a species meets the 
definition of ``endangered species'' or ``threatened species'' because 
of any of the following factors: (A) The present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors 
affecting its continued existence.

Determination of Status Throughout All of the Foskett Speckled Dace's 
Range

    As required by section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we conducted a review of 
the status of the Foskett speckled dace and assessed the five factors 
to evaluate whether the Foskett speckled dace is endangered or 
threatened throughout all of its range. We examined the best scientific 
and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and 
future threats faced by the species. 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 (see Table 1, above).
    As a result of our analysis, we found that impacts believed to be 
threats to the habitat of the Foskett speckled dace at the time of 
listing (groundwater pumping for irrigation, use of the area by 
livestock, channeling of the springs for agricultural purposes, and 
other mechanical modifications of the aquatic ecosystem) 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 
(Factor A). The finalization of the CMP acknowledges the 
``conservation-reliant'' nature of the Foskett speckled dace and the 
need for continued management of the habitat at Foskett Spring, and 
affirms that 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 the Foskett Spring population and the Dace 
Spring subpopulation are secure.
    We found that overutilization for commercial, recreational, 
scientific, or educational purposes (Factor B) and disease or predation 
(Factor C) still pose no threat to the Foskett speckled dace.
    The existence of Federal regulatory mechanisms like the Lakeview 
District BLM's management of the area under its RMP and the Federal 
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, State conservation measures 
such as the Oregon Native Fish Conservation Strategy, and other 
authorities supporting each cooperating agency's entrance into the CMP 
agreement reduce risk to the Foskett speckled dace and its habitat 
(Factor D).
    Finally, in over 30 years of monitoring, no exotic fishes have been 
detected in, and there is no evidence of attempts to introduce exotic 
fish species into, Foskett speckled dace habitat, no vandalism has 
occurred beyond a single incident of gate removal, and 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 found that other natural or manmade 
factors (Factor E) do not constitute a substantial threat to the 
Foskett speckled dace now or in the foreseeable future.
    After assessing the best available information, we conclude that 
the previously recognized impacts to the Foskett speckled dace no 
longer are a threat to the species, such that the Foskett speckled dace 
is not currently in danger of extinction, and is not likely to become 
so within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
    Because we determined that the 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.

Determination of Status Throughout a Significant Portion of the Foskett 
Speckled Dace's Range

    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so 
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of 
its range (SPR). Having determined that the Foskett speckled dace is 
not in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in the 
foreseeable future throughout all of its range, we now consider whether 
it may be in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the 
foreseeable future in an SPR. The range of a species can theoretically 
be divided into portions in an infinite number of ways, so we first 
screen the potential portions of the species' range to determine if 
there are any portions that warrant further consideration. To do this, 
we look for portions of the species' range for which there is 
substantial information indicating that: (1) The portion may be 
significant, and (2) the species may be in danger of extinction or 
likely to become so in the

[[Page 48307]]

foreseeable future in that portion. A portion only warrants further 
consideration if there is substantial information that both of these 
statements are true for that portion. Therefore, for a particular 
portion, if we determine that there is not substantial information that 
one of these statements is true, then the species does not warrant 
listing because of its status in that portion of its range.
    We evaluated the range of the Foskett speckled dace to determine if 
any area may be a significant portion of the range. The Foskett 
speckled dace is endemic to Foskett Spring in the Warner Basin. The 
known historical, 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 a 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 a single, population and that there are no separate areas 
of the range that are likely to be of greater biological or 
conservation importance than any other areas due to natural biological 
reasons alone. Therefore, there is not substantial information that 
logical, biological divisions exist that would support delineating one 
or more portions within the species' range.
    Based on our determination that no natural biological divisions 
delineate separate portions of the Foskett speckled dace population, we 
conclude that there are no portions of the species' range for which 
both (1) the portions are likely to be significant, and (2) the species 
is likely to be in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the 
foreseeable future in those portions. This makes it unnecessary for us 
to undertake any further consideration or analysis of whether this 
species is endangered or threatened throughout an SPR. We conclude 
therefore that there is no significant portion of the species' range 
where it is an endangered species or a threatened species. Our approach 
to analyzing SPR in this determination is consistent with the court's 
holding in Desert Survivors v. Department of the Interior, No. 16-cv-
01165-JCS, 2018 WL 4053447 (N.D. Cal. August 24, 2018).

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 actions include securing the property, 
and developing and implementing 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 or a significant portion of its range, the 
species does not meet the Act's definition of an endangered species or 
a threatened species. We conclude that the Foskett speckled dace no 
longer requires the protection of the Act, and, therefore, we are 
removing it from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife.

Effects of This Rule

    This rule revises 50 CFR 17.11(h) to remove the Foskett speckled 
dace from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 
revises 50 CFR 17.44(j) to remove the Foskett speckled dace from the 
applicable rule promulgated under section 4(d) of the Act. On the 
effective date of this rule (see DATES, above), the prohibitions and 
conservation measures provided by the Act, particularly through 
sections 7 and 9, no longer apply to this species, and Federal agencies 
are no longer 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. There is no critical habitat 
designated for this species; therefore, this rule does not affect 50 
CFR 17.95. Current State laws related to the Foskett speckled dace will 
remain in place and be enforced, and will continue to provide 
protection for this species.

Post-Delisting Monitoring

    Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us, in cooperation with the 
States, to implement a system to monitor effectively, for not less than 
5 years, all species that have been recovered and delisted. The purpose 
of this post-delisting monitoring is to verify that a species remains 
secure from risk of extinction after it has been removed from the 
protections of the Act. The monitoring is designed to detect the 
failure of any delisted species to sustain itself 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 under section 4(b)(7) of the Act. 
Section 4(g) of the Act explicitly requires us to cooperate with the 
States in development and implementation of post-delisting monitoring 
programs, but we remain responsible for compliance with section 4(g) of 
the Act and, therefore, must remain actively engaged in all phases of 
post-delisting monitoring. We also seek active participation of other 
entities that are expected to assume responsibilities for the species' 
conservation post-delisting.

Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan Overview

    We prepared a PDM plan for the Foskett speckled dace, building on 
and continuing the research that has taken place in the time since the 
species was listed. The PDM plan discusses the current status of the 
taxon and describes the methods to be used for monitoring after the 
taxon is removed from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife. The PDM plan: (1) Summarizes the current status of the 
Foskett speckled dace; (2) provides an outline of the roles of PDM 
cooperators; (3) describes monitoring methods; (4) provides an outline 
of the frequency and duration of monitoring; (5) provides an outline of 
data compilation and reporting procedures; and (6) defines thresholds 
or triggers for potential monitoring outcomes and conclusions of the 
PDM.
    It is our intent to work with our partners towards maintaining the 
recovered status of the Foskett speckled dace.

Required Determinations

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

[[Page 48308]]

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 contacted the Burns Paiute Tribe to coordinate with them 
regarding the proposed rule to delist the Foskett speckled dace. We 
provided the Tribe with a copy of the proposed rule and draft PDM, but 
we did not receive any comments from them.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this final rule is 
available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket 
No. FWS-R1-ES-2017-0051 or upon request from the person listed under 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Authors

    The primary authors of this final 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.

Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 
of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

0
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.


Sec.  17.11   [Amended]

0
2. Amend Sec.  17.11 in the table in paragraph (h) under FISHES by 
removing the entry for ``Dace, Foskett speckled'' from the List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.


Sec.  17.44   [Amended]

0
3. Amend Sec.  17.44 by:
0
a. Removing the words ``and Foskett speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus 
subspecies)'' from paragraph (j) introductory text; and
0
b. In paragraphs (j)(1) and (2), removing the word ``these'' and adding 
in its place the word ``this''.

    Dated: August 9, 2019.
Margaret E. Everson,
Principal Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Exercising 
the Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-19850 Filed 9-12-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P