Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Foskett Speckled Dace From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
Federal Register, Volume 83 Issue 3 (Thursday, January 4, 2018)
Federal Register Volume 83, Number 3 (Thursday, January 4, 2018)
Proposed Rules
Pages 475-490
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov
FR Doc No: 2017-28465
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2017-0051; FXES11130900000-178-FF09E42000
RIN 1018-BC09
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Foskett Speckled Dace From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of draft post-delisting monitoring plan.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS), propose to remove the Foskett speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus ssp.), a fish native to Oregon, from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife on the basis of recovery. This determination is based on a review of the best available scientific and commercial information, which indicates that the threats to the Foskett speckled dace have been eliminated or reduced to the point where it no longer meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We are seeking information and comments from the public regarding this proposed rule and the draft post-delisting monitoring plan for the Foskett speckled dace.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before March 5, 2018. Please note that if you are using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES), the deadline for submitting an electronic comment is 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on this date. We must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by February 20, 2018.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R1-ES-2017-0051, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then click on the Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, click on the Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on ``Comment Now!''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2017-0051, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
Document availability: This proposed rule and a copy of the draft post-delisting monitoring (PDM) plan referenced throughout this document can be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2017-0051, or at the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office's website at https://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo. In addition, the supporting file for this proposed rule will be available for public inspection by appointment, during normal business hours, at the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, 2600 SE 98th Avenue, Suite 100, Portland, OR 97226; telephone 503-231-6179.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Henson, State Supervisor, 2600 SE 98th Avenue, Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266; telephone: 503-231-6179; facsimile (fax): 503-231-6195. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, a species may be removed from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (List) due to recovery. A species is an ``endangered species'' for purposes of the Act if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range and is a ``threatened species'' if it is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future.'' The Foskett speckled dace is listed as threatened, and we are proposing to delist the species (i.e., remove the species from the List) because we have determined it is not likely to become an endangered species now or within the foreseeable future. Delistings can only be made by issuing a rulemaking.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a species is an endangered or threatened species because of any one or a combination of five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. We have determined that the Foskett speckled dace is no longer at risk of extinction and has exceeded or met the following criteria for delisting described in the species' recovery plan:
(1) Long-term protection of habitat, including spring source aquifers, spring pools and outflow channels, and surrounding lands, is assured;
(2) Long-term habitat management guidelines are developed and implemented to ensure the continued persistence of important habitat features and include monitoring of current habitat and investigation for and evaluation of new spring habitats; and
(3) Research into life history, genetics, population trends, habitat use and preference, and other important parameters is conducted to assist in further developing and/or refining criteria (1) and (2), above.
As per recovery criterion (2), we consider the Foskett speckled dace to be a conservation-reliant species \1\ (see Scott et al. 2010, entire), given that it requires active management to maintain suitable habitat. To address this management need, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), and the Service developed and are implementing the Foskett Speckled Dace (Rhinichthys osculus ssp.) Cooperative Management Plan (CMP; USFWS et al. 2015), and are committed
Page 476
to the continuing long-term management of this species.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ We define conservation-reliant species in this case as those that have generally met recovery criteria but require continued active management to sustain the species and associated habitat in a recovered condition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information Requested
Public Comments
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments or information from other governmental or State agencies, Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or other interested parties concerning this proposed rule. The comments that will be most useful and likely to influence our decisions are those supported by data or peer-reviewed studies and those that include citations to, and analyses of, applicable laws and regulations. Please make your comments as specific as possible and explain the basis for them. In addition, please include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you reference or provide. We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) Reasons why we should or should not remove Foskett speckled dace from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (i.e., ``delist'' the fish under the Act);
(2) New biological or other relevant data concerning any threat (or lack thereof) to this fish (e.g., those associated with climate change);
(3) New information on any efforts by the State or other entities to protect or otherwise conserve the Foskett speckled dace or its habitat;
(4) New information concerning the range, distribution, and population size or trends of this fish;
(5) New information on the current or planned activities in the habitat or range of the Foskett speckled dace that may adversely affect or benefit the fish; and
(6) Information pertaining to the requirements for post-delisting monitoring of the Foskett speckled dace.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, may not meet the standard of information required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which directs that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.''
Prior to issuing a final rule to implement this proposed action, we will take into consideration all comments and any additional information we receive. Such information may lead to a final rule that differs from this proposal. All comments and recommendations, including names and addresses, will become part of the administrative record.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We will not consider comments sent by email, fax, or to an address not listed in ADDRESSES. We will not consider hand-delivered comments that we do not receive, or mailed comments that are not postmarked by, the date specified in DATES. If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will be posted on the website. Please note that comments posted to this website are not immediately viewable. When you submit a comment, the system receives it immediately. However, the comment will not be publicly viewable until we post it, which might not occur until several days after submission.
If you mail or hand-deliver hardcopy comments that include personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. To ensure that the electronic docket for this rulemaking is complete and all comments we receive are publicly available, we will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule and draft post-
delisting monitoring (PDM) plan, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see Document availability under ADDRESSES, above).
Public Hearing
Section 4(b)(5)(E) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal, if requested. We must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT within 45 days after the date of this Federal Register publication (see DATES, above). We will schedule at least one public hearing on this proposal, if any are requested, and announce the dates, times, and location(s) of any hearings, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the Federal Register at least 15 days before the first hearing.
Peer Review
In accordance with our policy, ``Notice of Interagency Cooperative Policy for Peer Review in Endangered Species Act Activities,'' which was published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert opinion of at least three appropriate independent specialists regarding this proposed rule as well as the draft PDM plan. The purpose of peer review is to ensure that decisions are based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. These reviews will be completed during the public comment period.
We will consider all comments and information we receive during the comment period on this proposed rule as we prepare the final determination. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this proposal.
Background
Previous Federal Actions
We published a final rule listing the Foskett speckled dace as threatened in the Federal Register on March 28, 1985 (50 FR 12302). This rule also found that the designation of critical habitat was not prudent because it would increase the likelihood of vandalism to the small, isolated springs that support this species. On April 27, 1998, a recovery plan was completed for the Foskett speckled dace as well as two other fish of the Warner Basin and Alkali Subbasin (USFWS 1998).
On March 25, 2009 (USFWS 2009, entire), a 5-year review of the Foskett speckled dace status was completed, recommending no change in listing status. On February 18, 2014, we published a notice in the Federal Register announcing the initiation of 5-year status reviews and information requests for five species, including the Foskett speckled dace (79 FR 9263). No information was received from this request. The second 5-year review, completed on October 26, 2015 (USFWS 2015, entire), concluded that the status of the Foskett speckled dace had substantially improved since the time of listing according to the definitions of ``endangered species'' and ``threatened species'' under the Act and recommended that the Foskett speckled dace be considered for delisting.
Species Description
The Foskett speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus ssp.) is in the family Cyprinidae (Girard 1857) and is
Page 477
represented by two populations in Lake County, Oregon: A natural population that inhabits Foskett Spring on the west side of Coleman Lake, and an introduced population at Dace Springs (USFWS 1998, p. 14). The Foskett speckled dace is a small, elongate, rounded minnow (4 inches (in) (10 centimeters (cm)) with a flat belly. The snout is moderately pointed, the eyes and mouth are small, and ventral barbels (i.e., whisker-like sensory organs near the mouth) are present. Foskett speckled dace have eight dorsal fin rays and seven anal fin rays, and the caudal fin is moderately forked (USFWS 1998, p. 8). The color of its back is dusky to dark olive; the sides are grayish green, with a dark lateral stripe, often obscured by dark speckles or blotches; and the fins are plain. Breeding males are reddish on the lips and fin bases.
Life History
Relatively little is known about the biology of the Foskett speckled dace. Fish breed at age 1 year, and spawning begins in March to April and extends into July; individual fish can live for at least 4 years (Scheerer et al. 2015, p. 2). Length-frequency histograms suggest the presence of multiple age classes and that successful reproduction occurs annually (Sheerer and Jacobs 2009, p. 5). Young-of-the-year fish are more common in the shallow marsh habitats (Scheerer et al. 2016, p. 3). Presumably, similar to other dace, Foskett speckled dace require rock or gravel substrate for egg deposition (Sigler and Sigler 1987, p. 208). The taxonomy of the Foskett speckled dace is summarized in the species' 5-year review (USFWS 2015).
Distribution
The Foskett speckled dace is endemic to Foskett Spring in the Warner Basin, in southeastern Oregon (see Figure 1). The historical known natural range of the Foskett speckled dace is limited to Foskett Spring. At the time of listing in 1985, Foskett speckled dace also occurred at nearby Dace Spring where translocation was initiated in 1979 (Williams et al. 1990, p. 243).
Foskett speckled dace were probably distributed throughout prehistoric Coleman Lake (see Figure 1) during times that it held substantial amounts of water. The timing of the isolation between the Warner Lakes and the Coleman Lake Subbasin is uncertain although it might have been as recent as 10,000 years ago (Bills 1977, entire). As Coleman Lake dried, the salt content of the water increased and suitable habitat would have been reduced from a large lake to spring systems that provided adequate freshwater.
GRAPHIC TIFF OMITTED TP04JA18.000
Given that both Foskett and Dace springs were historically below the surface of Coleman Lake, it is reasonable to assume that Foskett speckled dace occupied Dace Spring at some point in the past although none was documented in the 1970s. Beginning in 1979, Foskett speckled dace were translocated into the then-fishless Dace Spring to attempt to
Page 478
create a second population (see discussion below, under Abundance).
Habitat
Foskett Spring is a small, natural spring that rises from a springhead pool that flows through a narrow, shallow spring brook into a series of shallow marshes, and then disappears into the soil of the normally dry Coleman Lake (Scheerer et al. 2016, p. 1). Foskett Spring is a cool-water spring with temperatures recorded at a constant 64.8 degrees Fahrenheit (degF) (18.2 degrees Celsius (degC)) (Scheerer and Jacobs 2009, p. 5). The spring water is clear, and the water flow rate is 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 (Scheerer and Jacobs 2005, p. 7; 2007, p. 9; and 2009, p. 5). They noted that encroachment by aquatic plants may be limiting the population and that a decline in abundance of Foskett speckled dace since 1997 was probably due to the reduction in open-water habitat. Deeper water with moderate vegetative cover would presumably be better habitat, judging from the habitats used by other populations of speckled dace, although Dambacher et al. (1997, no pagination) noted that past habitat management to increase open-water habitat has been unsuccessful in the long run due to sediment infilling and regrowth of aquatic plants. To address the encroachment by aquatic vegetation, in 2013, the BLM implemented a controlled burn in the surrounding marshes to reduce vegetation biomass. In 2013 and 2014, the BLM hand-excavated 11 pools and increased the open-water habitat 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).
Dace Spring is approximately 0.5 mile (mi) (0.8 kilometer (km)) south of Foskett Spring and is smaller than Foskett Spring. Baseline water quality and vegetation monitoring at Foskett and Dace springs were initiated by the BLM in 1987. Data collected on September 28, 1988, documented that the springs had similar water chemistry, temperature, and turbidity (Williams et al. 1990, p. 244). To increase open-water habitat, the BLM and the Service worked together in 2009, to construct two ponds connected to the outlet channel of Dace Spring. In 2013, the BLM reconfigured the inlet and outlet to the two ponds, allowing greater water flow and improving water quality (Scheerer et al. 2013, p. 8).
Abundance
The population of Foskett speckled dace has been monitored regularly by the ODFW since 2005, and, while variable, the population appears to be resilient (i.e., ability of a species to withstand natural variation in habitat conditions and weather as well as random events). General observations made during these population surveys included the presence of multiple 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 (Table 1). The data in Table 1 were obtained using the Lincoln-Petersen model (1997-2012), the Huggins closed-capture model (2011-2014), and a state-space model (2015-2016). Estimates were not calculated by habitat type using the Huggins model in 2011, because length-frequency data were not available for each habitat location (Scheerer et al. 2015, pp. 4-7; Scheerer et al. 2013, p. 5; Scheerer et al. 2014, p. 6; Scheerer et al. 2016, p. 6). Different models have been used to estimate abundance through time to provide the most accurate and robust estimates; for example, it was determined that the Lincoln-
Petersen estimator had underestimated abundance (Peterson et al. 2015). Abundance declined substantially from 1997 through 2012, a period when aquatic plants substantially expanded into open-water habitats (Scheerer et al. 2016, p. 9). The higher population estimates from 2013 through 2015 were attributed to habitat management that increased open-
water habitat (see below) and most fish occurred in maintained habitats (Scheerer et al. 2016, p. 9). The population decline documented in 2016 in Foskett Spring was likely a result of vegetation regrowth into the excavated areas (Scheerer et al. 2016, pp. 6-9). As a result of the vegetation regrowth and population decline in 2016, and consistent with the CMP, the BLM conducted an extensive habitat enhancement project in 2017, excavating approximately 300 cubic yards (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 CI: 3,878-4,782), a moderate increase in the estimate from the prior year (1,830) (P. Scheerer, ODFW, pers. comm. 2017). As noted previously, and as illustrated in Table 1 below, the variability in abundance is not uncommon for this species and appears in part to be driven by the availability of open-water habitat. Given information gained from prior habitat enhancement actions at Foskett and Dace springs, we anticipate the extensive habitat enhancement work conducted by the BLM in 2017 will support an increase in abundance in coming years.
Page 479
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- no sample....... 26,881 (13,158- 27,787 (14,057- none.
2,281). 40,605). 41,516).
2005 1,627 (1,157- 755 (514-1,102). 425 (283-636)... 353 (156-695)... 3,147 (2,535- none.
2,284). 3,905).
2007 1,418 (1,003- 719 (486-1,057). 273 (146-488)... 422 (275-641)... 2,984 (2,403- none.
1,997). 3,702).
2009 247 (122-463)... 1,111 (774- 1,062 (649- 158 (57-310).... 2,830 (2,202- none.
1,587). 1,707). 3,633).
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.............. NA.............. NA.............. 1,728 (1,269- none.
2,475).
2012 633 (509-912)... 589 (498-1,024). 625 (442-933)... 0............... 1,848 (1,489- Controlled burn.
2,503).
2013 2,579 (1,985- 638 (566-747)... 6,891 (5,845- 3,033 (2,500- 13,142 (1,157- Pool excavation and
3,340). 8,302). 3,777). 2,284). hand excavation of
spring brook and
marshes.
2014 2,843 (2,010- 7,571 (2,422- 11,595 (7,891- 2,936 (1,757- 24,888 (19,250- Pool excavation and
3,243). 13,892). 12,682). 7,002). 35,510). hand excavation of
spring brook and
marshes.
State-space................... 2015 698 (520-2,284). 11,941 (5,465- 3,662 (2,158- 38 (8-111)...... 16,340 (10,980- none.
15,632). 6,565). 21,577).
2016 138 (122-226)... 656 (609-1240).. 1,021 (926-1245) 14 (12-19)...... 1,830 (1,694- none.
2,144).
2017 925............. 1,032........... 2,322........... NA \4\.......... 4,279 (3,878- Mechanical excavation
4,782). 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). Although an estimated 300 fish were documented in 1986 (Williams et al. 1990, p. 243), this initial effort failed to establish a population at Dace Spring due to a lack of successful recruitment (Dambacher et al. 1997, no pagination). Only 19 fish were observed in 1997, and subsequent surveys failed to locate individuals in Dace Springs (Scheerer and Jacobs 2005, p. 2). In 2009, two pools were created at Dace Spring to increase open-water habitat and additional individuals were moved to the spring. Although recruitment was documented, major algal blooms and periods of low dissolved oxygen resulted in low survival (Scheerer et al. 2012, p. 8). Habitat manipulation by the BLM in 2013 improved water quality, and recruitment was documented in 2014 and 2015 (Scheerer et al. 2014, p. 6; Scheerer et al. 2015, p. 5). The two constructed pools at Dace Spring are currently providing additional habitat and may continue to serve as a refuge population for Foskett speckled dace. Based on 2017 population estimates, Dace Spring numbers have increased dramatically since 2013 (Table 2). The population estimates in Table 2 were made with 95 percent confidence intervals, translocations, and habitat management (Williams et al. 1990, p. 243; Dambacher et al. 1997, no pagination; Scheerer and Jacobs 2005, p. 2; Scheerer et al. 2012, p. 1; Scheerer et al. 2013, pp. 2, 8; Scheerer et al. 2014, pp. 6, 9; Scheerer et al. 2015, p. 5; Scheerer et al. 2016, p. 6; Scheerer et. al. 2017, p. 6).
Table 2--Dace Spring: Summary of Foskett Speckled Dace Population Estimates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Population estimate Number translocated Habitat management
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-1979........................... 0..................... none.................. none.
1979............................... no estimate........... 50.................... none.
1980............................... no estimate........... 50.................... none.
1986............................... 300 \1\............... none.................. none.
1997...............................
