[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 25 (Thursday, February 6, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7136-7152]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02363]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2014-0002: FXES11130900000C6-145-FF09E42000]
RIN 1018-BA28


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the 
Oregon Chub 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), propose to 
remove (delist) the Oregon chub (Oregonichthys crameri) from the 
Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. This proposed 
action is based on a thorough review of the best available scientific 
and commercial information, which indicates that the Oregon chub has 
recovered and no longer meets the definition of an endangered species 
or a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act). Our review of the status of this species shows that the 
threats to this species have been eliminated or reduced and populations 
are stable so that the species is not currently, and is not likely to 
again become, a threatened species within the foreseeable future in all 
or a significant portion of its range. This proposed rule, if made 
final, would remove the currently designated critical habitat for the 
Oregon chub throughout its range. We also announce the availability of 
a draft post-delisting monitoring plan for the Oregon chub. We seek 
information, data, and comments from the public regarding this proposal 
to delist the Oregon chub and on the draft post-delisting monitoring 
plan.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before 
April 7, 2014. Please note that if you are using the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES), the deadline for submitting an 
electronic comment is Eastern Standard Time on this date. We must 
receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at the address shown 
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by March 24, 2014.

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-2014-0002, 
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, in the Search 
panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, 
click on the Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You may 
submit a comment by clicking on ``Comment Now!''
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public 
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R1-ES-2014-0002; Division of Policy and 
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax 
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
    We request that you send comments only by the methods described 
above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally

[[Page 7137]]

means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see 
the Public Comments section below for more information).
    Document availability: The proposed rule and draft post-delisting 
monitoring plan are available on http://www.regulations.gov. 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, Portland, 
Oregon, 97266, telephone 503-231-6179. Persons who use a 
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 
Information Relay Services (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Henson, State Supervisor, 
telephone: 503-231-6179. Direct all questions or requests for 
additional information to: Oregon Chub Information Request, U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, 2600 SE 98th 
Avenue, Portland, Oregon, 97266. Individuals who are hearing-impaired 
or speech-impaired may call the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8337 
for TTY assistance.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Information Requested

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will 
be based on the best available scientific and commercial data and will 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we invite 
Tribal and governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, 
and other interested parties to submit comments or recommendations 
concerning any aspect of this proposed rule and the draft post-
delisting monitoring plan. Comments should be as specific as possible.
    We are specifically requesting comments on:
    (1) Biological information concerning the Oregon chub, including 
competition and predation from nonnative species and the loss or 
alteration of habitat through natural or anthropogenic processes;
    (2) Relevant data concerning any current or likely future 
biological or environmental threats which may lead to a decline in the 
Oregon chub, such that it meets the definition of a threatened or 
endangered species;
    (3) Whether we could improve or modify our post-delisting 
monitoring (PDM) plan methods to provide information critical to the 
long-term persistence of the Oregon chub;
    (4) Whether the triggers and responses described under the PDM plan 
provide adequate protection for the species during the 9-year duration 
of the plan;
    (5) Additional information regarding management plans or other 
mechanisms that provide protections to the Oregon chub or their 
habitats; and
    (6) Relevant data on climate change (including any modeling data 
and projections for the Willamette River basin) and potential impacts 
to the Oregon chub due to changes in precipitation levels, seasonal 
stream flows, and water temperatures.
    To issue a final rule to implement this proposed action, we will 
take into consideration all comments and any additional information we 
receive. Such communications may lead to a final rule that differs from 
this proposal. All comments, including commenters' names and addresses, 
if provided to us, will become part of the supporting record.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. Comments 
must be submitted to http://www.regulations.gov before 11:59 p.m. 
(Eastern Time) on the date specified in the DATES section. We will 
consider any and all comments received, or mailed comments that are 
postmarked, by the date specified in the DATES section.
    We will post your entire comment--including your personal 
identifying information--on http://www.regulations.gov. If you provide 
personal identifying information in your comment, 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.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, 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 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).

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 the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section within 45 days after the date of this 
Federal Register publication (see DATES). We will schedule public 
hearings on this proposal, if any are requested, and announce the 
dates, times, and places of those 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 
scientific data and interpretations contained in this proposed rule as 
well as the draft PDM plan. We will send copies of the proposed rule 
and PDM plan to the peer reviewers immediately following publication in 
the Federal Register. This assessment will be completed during the 
public comment period. The purpose of such review is to ensure that our 
decisions are based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and 
analyses. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this 
proposal.

Previous Federal Actions

    In our December 30, 1982, Review of Vertebrate Wildlife for Listing 
as Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act, we listed the Oregon 
chub as a Category 2 candidate species (47 FR 58454). Category 2 
candidates, a designation no longer used, were species for which 
information contained in Service files indicated that proposing to list 
was appropriate but additional information was needed to support a 
listing proposal. The Oregon chub maintained its Category 2 status in 
both the September 18, 1985 (50 FR 37958), and January 6, 1989 (54 FR 
554), Notices of Review.
    On April 10, 1990, we received a petition to list the Oregon chub 
as an endangered species and to designate critical habitat. On November 
1, 1990, we published a 90-day finding indicating that the petitioners 
had presented substantial information indicating that the requested 
action may be warranted and initiated a status review (55 FR 46080). On 
November 19, 1991, we published a 12-month finding on the petition 
concurrent with a proposal to list the species as endangered (56 FR 
58348). A final rule listing the Oregon chub as endangered was 
published in the Federal Register on October 18, 1993 (58 FR 53800).
    On March 9, 2007, the Institute for Wildlife Protection filed suit 
in Federal district court, alleging that the Service and the Secretary 
of the Interior violated their statutory duties as mandated by the Act 
when they failed to designate critical habitat for the Oregon chub and 
failed to perform a 5-year status review

[[Page 7138]]

(Institute for Wildlife Protection v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 
On March 8, 2007, we issued a notice in the Federal Register that we 
would commence a status review of the Oregon chub (72 FR 10547). In a 
settlement agreement with the Plaintiff, we agreed to submit a proposed 
critical habitat rule for the Oregon chub to the Federal Register by 
March 1, 2009, and to submit a final critical habitat determination to 
the Federal Register by March 1, 2010.
    A 5-year review of the Oregon chub status was completed in February 
2008 (Service 2008a); this review concluded that the Oregon chub's 
status had substantially improved since the time of listing and that 
the Oregon chub no longer met the definition of endangered but met the 
definition of a threatened species under the Act. The review 
recommended that the Oregon chub should be reclassified from endangered 
to threatened.
    On March 10, 2009, we published a proposed rule (74 FR 10412) to 
designate critical habitat for the Oregon chub. The public comment 
period was open for 60 days, from March 10, 2009, to May 11, 2009. We 
subsequently reopened the public comment period on September 22, 2009, 
for an additional 30 days ending October 22, 2009 (74 FR 48211). During 
the reopened public comment period, we held a public hearing in 
Corvallis, Oregon. We published a final rule designating critical 
habitat on March 10, 2010 (75 FR 11010), and a technical correction to 
the final critical habitat rule on April 9, 2010 (75 FR 18107).
    On May 15, 2009, we published a proposed rule to reclassify the 
Oregon chub from endangered to threatened (74 FR 22870). The public 
comment period on the proposal was open for 60 days from May 15, 2009, 
to July 14, 2009. On April 23, 2010, we published a final rule 
reclassifying the federally endangered Oregon chub to threatened under 
the authority of the Act (75 FR 21179). The decision was based on a 
thorough review of the best available scientific and commercial data, 
which indicated that the species' status had improved to the point that 
the Oregon chub was not in danger of extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range.
    On May 19, 2009, we published a notice in the Federal Register 
announcing the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) 
application for an enhancement of survival permit under section 
10(a)(1)(A) of the Act (74 FR 23431). The permit application included a 
proposed Programmatic Safe Harbor Agreement between ODFW and the 
Service (Service 2009, pp. 1-30). We issued the permit on August 31, 
2009. The term of the permit and agreement is 30 years. The permit 
authorizes ODFW to extend incidental take coverage with assurances to 
eligible landowners who are willing to carry out habitat management 
measures that would benefit the Oregon chub by enrolling them under the 
agreement as Cooperators through issuance of Certificates of Inclusion. 
The geographic scope of the agreement includes all non-Federal 
properties throughout the estimated historical distribution of the 
species in the Willamette Valley.
    On February 5, 2013, we published a notice in the Federal Register 
announcing the initiation of 5-year status reviews and requesting 
information for 44 species, including the Oregon chub (78 FR 8185). No 
information was received from this request. This proposed rule, which 
considers the same information as required in a status review, will 
also serve as our 5-year status review for the Oregon chub.

Background

Species Information

    Species Description and Life History--The Oregon chub is a small 
minnow in the Cyprinid family. Young of the year range in length from 7 
to 32 millimeters (mm) (0.3 to 1.3 inches), and adults can be up to 90 
mm (3.5 inches) in length (Pearsons 1989, p. 17). The Oregon chub 
reaches maturity at about 2 years of age (Scheerer and McDonald 2003, 
p. 78) and in wild populations can live up to 9 years. Oregon chub 
spawn from May through August and are not known to spawn more than once 
a year.
    The Oregon chub is found in slack water off-channel habitats such 
as beaver (Castor canadensis) ponds, oxbows, side channels, backwater 
sloughs, low-gradient tributaries, and flooded marshes. These habitats 
usually have little or no water flow, are dominated by silty and 
organic substrate, and contain considerable aquatic vegetation 
providing cover for hiding and spawning (Pearsons 1989, p. 27; Markle 
et al. 1991, p. 289; Scheerer and McDonald 2000, p. 1). The average 
depth of habitat utilized by the Oregon chub is less than 1.8 meters 
(m) (6 feet), and summer water temperatures typically exceed 16[deg] 
Celsius (61[deg]F). Adult Oregon chub seek dense vegetation for cover 
and frequently travel in the mid-water column in beaver channels or 
along the margins of aquatic plant beds. Larval Oregon chub congregate 
in shallow near-shore areas in the upper layers of the water column, 
whereas juveniles venture farther from shore into deeper areas of the 
water column (Pearsons 1989, p. 16). In the winter months, the Oregon 
chub can be found buried in the detritus or concealed in aquatic 
vegetation (Pearsons 1989, p. 16). Fish of similar size school and feed 
together. In the early spring, Oregon chub are most active in the 
warmer, shallow areas of aquatic habitats.
    The Oregon chub is an obligatory sight feeder (Davis and Miller 
1967, p. 32). They feed throughout the day and stop feeding after dusk 
(Pearsons 1989, p. 23). The Oregon chub feeds mostly on water column 
fauna. The diet of Oregon chub adults collected in a May sample 
consisted primarily of minute crustaceans including copepods, 
cladocerans, and chironomid larvae (Markle et al. 1991, p. 288). The 
diet of juvenile Oregon chub also consists of minute organisms such as 
rotifers and cladocerans (Pearsons 1989, p. 2).
    Range--The Oregon chub is endemic to the Willamette River drainage 
of western Oregon. Historical records show the Oregon chub was found as 
far downstream as Oregon City and as far upstream as the town of 
Oakridge. At the time of listing in 1993, there were only nine known 
populations of Oregon chub, and only a few estimates existed of the 
number of individuals within each population. These locations 
represented a small fraction (estimated as 2 percent based on stream 
miles) of the species' formerly extensive distribution within the 
Willamette River drainage.
    Abundance and Distribution--Since we listed the Oregon chub as 
endangered in 1993, the status of the species has improved dramatically 
due to the discovery of many new populations and successful 
reintroductions within the species' historical range (Scheerer 2007, p. 
97). Recently, since we reclassified the Oregon chub to threatened 
status in 2010, a substantial number of new Oregon chub populations 
have been discovered (28 populations) and established through 
introductions (8 populations). In 2012, the ODFW confirmed the 
existence of the Oregon chub at 79 locations in the Luckiamute River, 
North and South Santiam River, McKenzie River, Middle Fork and Coast 
Fork Willamette Rivers, and several tributaries to the mainstem 
Willamette River downstream of the Coast Fork and Middle Fork 
Willamette River confluence (Bangs et al. 2012, pp. 7-9). These include 
59 naturally occurring and 20 introduced populations. Currently, 36 
Oregon chub populations have an estimated abundance of more than 500 
fish each; and 20 of these

[[Page 7139]]

populations have also exhibited a stable or increasing trend over the 
last 7 years (Bangs et al. 2012, p. 1). The current status of Oregon 
chub populations meets the goals of the recovery plan for delisting. 
The distribution of these sites is shown in Table 1.

            Table 1--Distribution of Oregon Chub Populations Meeting Recovery Criteria for Delisting
                                          [Bangs et al. 2012, pp. 7-9].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Number of large
                                                             Number of large  populations with   Total estimated
            Recovery subbasin                 Number of        populations         stable/        abundance in
                                             populations      (>=500 adult       increasing         subbasin
                                                                  fish)        abundance trend
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Santiam.................................                17                11                 5            29,070
Mainstem Willamette \1\.................                25                 9                 6           146,509
Middle Fork Willamette..................                33                15                 9            44,999
Coast Fork Willamette \2\...............                 4                 1                 0               962
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................                79                36                20           221,540
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes McKenzie River subbasin.
\2\ The Coast Fork Willamette was identified as a subbasin containing the Oregon chub in the Recovery Plan, but
  was not identified as a Recovery Area.

    Although certain populations of the Oregon chub have remained 
relatively stable from year to year, substantial fluctuations in 
population abundance have been observed. For instance, the largest 
known population at Ankeny National Wildlife Refuge had an estimated 
abundance of 21,790 Oregon chub in 2010 and increased to 96,810 Oregon 
chub in 2011. Cyclical fluctuations in Oregon chub population abundance 
are commonly observed. For instance, Dexter Reservoir Alcove ``PIT1'' 
had an estimated population abundance of 140 in 1995. Although annual 
estimated abundance fluctuated, the population reached 1,440 estimated 
individuals in 2000. A decline in population abundance followed, and 
the 2004 population estimate was 70 Oregon chub. In 2005 the population 
again began to increase, and reached 1,370 estimated individuals in 
2009 (Scheerer et al. 2005, p. 2).
    A major component of recovery efforts for the Oregon chub has been 
introducing Oregon chub into hydrologically isolated habitats that are 
free from nonnative fish species. Twenty new populations have been 
established since 1988 (Table 2). In 2012, there were 13 introduced 
populations with more than 500 Oregon chub each; 6 of these populations 
have exhibited a stable or increasing 7-year abundance trend (Bangs et 
al. 2012, p. 15).

                  Table 2--Introduced Oregon Chub Populations (Bangs et al. 2012, pp. 7-9, 16)
  [MS--Mainstem Willamette River, S--Santiam River, CF--Coast Fork Willamette River, MF--Middle Fork Willamette
                                                     River]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Year of first    Number of fish       Estimated
            Site name                      Subbasin           introduction       introduced         abundance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dunn Wetland.....................  MS.....................              1997               573            44,160
Finley Display Pond..............  MS.....................              1998               500               220
Russell Pond.....................  MS.....................              2001               500               340
Finley Cheadle Pond..............  MS.....................              2002               530               204
Ankeny Willow Marsh..............  MS.....................              2004               500            82,800
St. Paul Ponds...................  MS.....................              2008               195               510
Finley-Buford Pond...............  MS.....................              2011               160               460
Murphy Pond......................  MS.....................              2011               214               189
Ellison Pond.....................  MS.....................              2012               110               111
Foster Pullout Pond..............  S......................              1999               500             2,240
South Stayton Pond...............  S......................              2006               439             2,000
North Stayton Pond...............  S......................              2010               620             4,370
Budeau South Pond................  S......................              2010               312             4,160
Budeau North Pond................  S......................              2010               310             5,730
Herman Pond......................  CF.....................              2002               400               190
Sprick Pond......................  CF.....................              2008                65               700
Wicopee Pond.....................  MF.....................              1992               178             5,620
Fall Creek Spillway Ponds........  MF.....................              1996               500             6,750
Haws Enhancement Pond............  MF.....................              2009               133               900
Hills Creek Pond.................  MF.....................              2010             1,127            13,460
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Genetic Diversity--The Service's Abernathy Fish Technology Center 
conducted a genetic analysis on the Oregon chub in 2010 (DeHaan et al. 
2010). The analysis examined genetic diversity at 10 microsatellite 
loci within and among 20 natural and 4 introduced populations. The 
findings suggest that four genetically distinct groups of the Oregon 
chub exist and these groups corresponded to the four subbasins of the 
Willamette River. Levels of genetic diversity were consistent across 
distribution and equal to, or greater than, other species of minnows 
(i.e., cyprinids). Most populations were stable over time at sites 
where genetic diversity was evaluated at a 7- to 8-year interval (three 
to four Oregon chub generations). Data suggests that adequate levels of 
genetic diversity exist

[[Page 7140]]

in most populations. Two sites were shown to have reduced genetic 
diversity: a recent bottleneck was observed in the Shetzline 
population, and the Geren Island population showed evidence of 
decreasing diversity, possibly due to significant reductions in the 
population size. Currently, both of these sites support abundant 
populations of the Oregon chub, which have exhibited an increasing 
trend in population growth over the last 7 years (Bangs et al. 2012, 
pp. 7-8).
    The report resulting from the genetic assessment (DeHaan et al. 
2010, p. 18) shows that the current Oregon chub translocation 
guidelines (ODFW 2006) are effective in establishing genetically viable 
populations (donor population from within same subbasin, and a minimum 
of 500 Oregon chub introduced). Levels of genetic diversity were 
similar to natural populations in three out of four of the introduced 
sites studied. Introduced populations from multiple sources had 
increased diversity and showed evidence of interbreeding. The Dunn 
wetland population, which had three donor populations, had the highest 
genetic diversity of all sites (natural and introduced). The Wicopee 
Pond population had relatively low levels of genetic diversity, which 
was likely due to this population being founded with only 50 Oregon 
chub originating from 1 source population. These data support 
introducing greater numbers of individuals and using multiple sources 
from within a subbasin.

Recovery and Recovery Plan Implementation

    Background--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.'' 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 achieve recovery of the 
species, measurable criteria that set a trigger for review of the 
species' status, and methods for monitoring recovery progress.
    Recovery plans are nonregulatory documents that are intended to 
establish goals for long-term conservation of listed species, 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, and provide guidance to 
our Federal, State, other governmental and nongovernmental partners on 
methods to minimize threats to listed species. Thus, while recovery 
plans provide important guidance 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 
Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants (50 CFR 17.11) 
(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: (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 human-made 
factors affecting its continued existence. 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 indicate when a species is no longer an endangered 
species or threatened species under the five statutory factors.
    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 accomplished. In that instance, we may determine that the 
threats are minimized sufficiently and the species is robust enough 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 discovered that was 
not known at the time the recovery plan was finalized. The new 
information may change the extent to which 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.
    Recovery Planning--The Oregon Chub Working Group, which was formed 
prior to listing the species, has been a proactive force in improving 
the conservation status of the Oregon chub. This group of Federal and 
State agency biologists, academicians, land managers, and others has 
met each year since 1991 to share information on the status of the 
Oregon chub, results of new research, and ongoing threats to the 
species. Additionally, an interagency conservation agreement was 
established for the Oregon chub in 1992 (ODFW et al. 1992). The 
objectives of the agreement were to: (1) Establish a task force drawn 
from participating agencies to oversee and coordinate Oregon chub 
conservation and management actions; (2) protect existing populations; 
(3) establish new populations; and (4) foster greater public 
understanding of the species, its status, and the factors that 
influence it (ODFW et al. 1992, pp. 3-5). These objectives are similar 
to that of the subsequently developed recovery plan.
    The Recovery Plan for the Oregon Chub was approved by the Service 
on September 3, 1998 (Service 1998). The recovery plan outlines 
recovery criteria to assist in determining when the Oregon chub has 
recovered to the point that the protections afforded by the Act are no 
longer needed. These delisting criteria are: (1) 20 populations of at 
least 500 individuals each are established and maintained; (2) all of 
these populations must exhibit a stable or increasing trend for 7 
years; (3) at least 4 populations (meeting criteria 1 and 2) must be 
located in each of the 3 subbasins (Mainstem Willamette, Middle Fork 
Willamette, and Santiam Rivers); and (4) management of these 20 
populations must be guaranteed in perpetuity (Service 1998, pp. 27-28).
    Recovery Plan Implementation--The status of the Oregon chub has 
improved dramatically since it was listed as endangered. The 
improvement is due largely to the implementation of actions identified 
in the interagency conservation agreement and the Oregon chub recovery 
plan. This includes the establishment of additional populations via 
successful introductions within the species' historical range and the 
discovery of many new populations as a result of ODFW's surveys of the 
basin (Scheerer 2007, p. 97). Twenty years

[[Page 7141]]

have passed since the species was listed, and it is now abundant and 
well-distributed throughout much of its presumed historical range. 
Currently, there are 79 Oregon chub populations, of which 36 have more 
than 500 adults (Bangs et al. 2012, pp. 6-12). The risk of extinction 
has been substantially reduced as threats have been managed and as new 
populations have been discovered or established. The Oregon chub has 
exceeded or met the following criteria for delisting described in the 
recovery plan:
    Delisting Criterion 1: 20 populations of at least 500 individuals 
are established and maintained. This criterion has been exceeded; in 
2012, we identified 36 populations with more than 500 adult Oregon chub 
(Table 1).
    Delisting Criterion 2: All of these populations (20) must exhibit a 
stable or increasing trend for 7 years. This criterion has been met. 
Currently, 20 populations of at least 500 individuals have exhibited a 
stable or increasing trend for 7 years (Table 1).
    Delisting Criterion 3: At least four populations (meeting criteria 
1 and 2) must be located in each of the three subbasins (Mainstem 
Willamette, Middle Fork, and Santiam Rivers). This criterion has been 
exceeded in all three subbasins. Six populations in the Mainstem 
Willamette River subbasin, nine populations in the Middle Fork 
Willamette River subbasin, and five populations in the Santiam River 
subbasin meet the first three delisting criteria (Table 1).
    Delisting Criterion 4: Management of these 20 populations must be 
guaranteed in perpetuity. The level of management protection 
recommended in the Oregon chub recovery plan (i.e., management 
guaranteed into perpetuity) exceeds the requirements of the Act in 
evaluating whether a species meets the statutory definition of 
threatened or endangered, as adequate protection for the species in the 
long term may be provided otherwise. Although we do not have guarantees 
that all of the populations will be managed into perpetuity, we have a 
high level of confidence that management of the Oregon chub sites will 
continue to provide adequate protection for the species in the long 
term, as further discussed below. However, of the 36 sites with 
populations of more than 500 Oregon chub, 25 of the sites are in public 
or Tribal ownership, with either active conservation management 
programs, or where land managers consider the needs of the Oregon chub 
when implementing site management activities. Additionally, seven of 
the sites with abundant populations of the Oregon chub are on land 
which is privately owned where landowners have signed conservation 
agreements or are enrolled in our Safe Harbor Program. These seven 
sites include land that is in a permanent easement or ownership by the 
McKenzie River Trust, a land trust which is dedicated to conservation 
of wetland and riparian habitat. Our analysis of whether the species 
has achieved recovery is based on the five factors identified in 
section 4 of the Act, which are discussed next.

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 due to one 
or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act: 
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment 
of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, 
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or 
predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) 
other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. We 
must consider these same five factors in delisting a species. We may 
delist a species according to 50 CFR 424.11(d) if the best available 
scientific and commercial data indicate that the species is neither 
endangered nor threatened for the following reasons: (1) The species is 
extinct; (2) the species has recovered and is no longer endangered or 
threatened (as is the case with the Oregon chub); and/or (3) the 
original scientific data used at the time the species was classified 
were in error.
    A recovered species is one that no longer meets the Act's 
definition of threatened or endangered. 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 threatened or endangered, 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 the delisting or downlisting and the 
removal or reduction of the Act's protections.
    A species is ``endangered'' for purposes of the Act if it is in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a ``significant portion of its 
range'' and is ``threatened'' if it is likely to become endangered 
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a ``significant portion 
of its range.'' The word ``range'' in the significant portion of its 
range phrase refers to the range in which the species currently exists. 
For the purposes of this analysis, we will evaluate whether the 
currently listed species, the Oregon chub, should be considered 
threatened or endangered throughout all its range. Then we will 
consider whether there are any significant portions of the Oregon 
chub's range where the species is in danger of extinction or likely to 
become so within the foreseeable future.
    The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future.'' For the 
purpose of this proposed rule, we defined the ``foreseeable future'' to 
be the extent to which, given the amount and substance of available 
data, we can anticipate events or effects, or reliably extrapolate 
threat trends, such that we reasonably believe that reliable 
predictions can be made concerning the future as it relates to the 
status of the Oregon chub. In considering the foreseeable future as it 
relates to the status of the Oregon chub, we considered the factors 
affecting the Oregon chub, historical abundance trends, and ongoing 
conservation efforts.
    The following analysis examines all five factors currently 
affecting, or that are likely to affect, the Oregon chub within the 
foreseeable future.

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment 
of Its Habitat or Range

    When the Oregon chub was listed as endangered in 1993, the species 
was known to exist at nine locations, representing only 2 percent of 
the species' historical range (Markle 1991, pp. 288-289; Scheerer et 
al. 2007, p. 2, Service 1993, p. 1). The decline in Oregon chub 
abundance and distribution was attributed to the extensive 
channelization, dam construction, and chemical contamination that 
occurred in the Willamette River basin, particularly from the 1940s 
through the late 20th century (Pearsons 1989, pp. 29-30).
    Since listing, concerted efforts by Federal, State, and local 
governments and private landowners have greatly reduced the threats to 
the Oregon chub. For example, the introduction of the Oregon chub into 
secure habitats has created refugial populations in habitats that are 
isolated from the threats of

[[Page 7142]]

habitat loss and invasion by nonnative fishes. Additionally, as 
explained below, research has expanded our understanding of suitable 
habitat for the Oregon chub, and increased survey efforts have led to 
the discovery of many natural populations. And, since 2002, the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has implemented minimum dam outflow 
targets that sustain downstream floodplain habitat, which has reduced 
the threat of habitat loss for the Oregon chub. These minimum flow 
targets will continue to be required into the future under existing 
biological opinions from the Service and National Marine Fisheries 
Service (NMFS) on the USACE's Willamette River Basin Project (see 
description below). The USACE also has a memorandum of understanding 
with The Nature Conservancy's Sustainable Rivers Project, an ongoing 
collaboration to promote ecologically sustainable flows below USACE 
dams in the Willamette River basin. For these reasons we anticipate 
that the USACE would continue to meet these minimum flow targets after 
delisting of the Oregon chub. Also, the acquisition of floodplain 
habitat for long-term conservation and restoration, including off-
channel locations preferred by the Oregon chub, has gained momentum in 
the Willamette River basin by a variety of Federal, State, Tribal, 
local governmental and nongovernmental agencies, which provides 
assurances that Oregon chub habitat will continue to be managed for the 
species. As a result, the Oregon chub is now abundant and well 
distributed in several Willamette River basin tributaries at 79 
locations.
    Since 1992, the Oregon chub has been introduced and established in 
20 secure, isolated habitats (Bangs et al. 2012, p. 16). These 
populations contribute to recovery by providing redundancy to the 
naturally occurring populations, increasing the abundance of the Oregon 
chub in each recovery area, and providing refugial habitat that is more 
resistant to the threats of habitat loss and invasion by nonnative 
fishes. The majority of Oregon chub individuals occur in populations at 
these introduction sites. In 2012, we estimated 174,730 Oregon chub in 
the 20 introduced populations. By contrast, we estimated 46,810 Oregon 
chub in the 59 naturally occurring populations. Ten of the introduction 
sites are in public ownership by Federal and State agencies that manage 
these sites for conservation of the Oregon chub.
    The remaining 10 introduction sites are privately owned. Many of 
these introduction sites were created or restored under the Service's 
Partners for Fish and Wildlife program managed by the staff of the 
Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Most of these 
landowners have either signed conservation agreements or are 
participating in our Safe Harbor Program. In the interest of conserving 
the Oregon chub, our Safe Harbor Program participants volunteered to 
allow the introduction of the Oregon chub into ponds on their land and 
signed management plans, called cooperative agreements, which are 
designed to protect the species and its habitat. In exchange, they were 
given an incidental take permit that extended an exemption from take 
prohibitions under section 9 of the Act. If the Oregon chub is 
delisted, the species will no longer be protected under these take 
prohibitions and the incidental take permit associated with the safe 
harbor agreements will no longer be in effect. This means that 
landowners will no longer be legally bound to protect the species on 
their property. However, we anticipate, based on their past interest 
and cooperation in protecting the species, that these landowners will 
continue to manage their land for conservation of the Oregon chub into 
the future as described in their cooperative agreements. We will also 
seek to extend these agreements beyond their initial 10-year time 
period and, in the event the property is later sold or transferred, we 
will work with the future landowners to enroll them in a cooperative 
agreement. Our conclusion that the species has recovered does not, 
however, rely on an assumption that these landowners will continue 
managing for conservation.
    In the 2008 5-year review of the status of the Oregon chub (Service 
2008a, p. 26), we identified concerns about the ability to achieve 
recovery due to the focus on managing primarily isolated populations 
with limited genetic exchange. To reduce threats associated with 
habitat isolation, we suggested that future recovery efforts should 
integrate habitat that is connected to the floodplain. Successful 
efforts to integrate floodplain habitat into Oregon chub recovery were 
facilitated in part through consultation with several Federal agencies 
under section 7 of the Act. Specifically, in 2008, the Service and NMFS 
completed consultation with the USACE, Bonneville Power Administration, 
and the Bureau of Reclamation under section 7 of the Act on the 
continued operation and maintenance of 13 large flood-control dams in 
the Willamette River basin, collectively known as the Willamette River 
Basin Project (Willamette Project). The Service's biological opinion 
considered the project's effects to the Oregon chub, the bull trout, 
and bull trout critical habitat (Service 2008b), while the NMFS' 
biological opinion considered effects to threatened salmon and 
steelhead (salmonids) and associated critical habitat. The terms and 
conditions of the Service's biological opinion required the USACE to 
fund a floodplain study that would increase our understanding of the 
effects that dam flow management was having on connected downstream 
Oregon chub habitat. The ODFW subsequently pursued opportunities to 
study these effects and to integrate floodplain habitat in recovery 
efforts, in part, through funding provided by the USACE under the terms 
and conditions of the biological opinion.
    The floodplain study required by the Willamette Project biological 
opinion began in 2009 (Bangs et al. 2010a, p. 1). Under this study, 
ODFW began sampling fish assemblages and monitoring habitat conditions 
(i.e., bathymetry, pond volume, percent vegetation, water temperature) 
in several off-channel habitats in the Middle Fork Willamette River 
downstream of Dexter dam in Lowell, Oregon, to Jasper, Oregon (Bangs et 
al. 2010a, pp. 2-4). The ODFW chose the Dexter to Jasper reach of the 
Middle Fork Willamette River as a study area because several off-
channel habitats in this reach were known to be occupied by the Oregon 
chub, and the majority of the adjacent land is in public ownership and 
accessible.
    The ODFW sampled most of the hydrologically connected off-channel 
habitat in this reach and discovered that the Oregon chub also occupied 
sites previously thought to be unsuitable. These sites contain greater 
habitat complexity than sites where Oregon chub were previously known 
to occur. Although these habitats have features such as beaver dams and 
shallow inundated benches that were known to provide suitable habitat 
for the Oregon chub, the recently discovered sites also include 
channels that have frequent connectivity to the adjacent river channel 
(Bangs 2013, pers. comm.). Frequently connected sites, such as these, 
were thought to be unsuitable because these sites could be accessed by 
nonnative fishes that prey upon or compete with the Oregon chub for 
resources. The discovery of the Oregon chub in these connected sites 
facilitated a better understanding of the diversity of habitats 
occupied by the Oregon chub, and prompted ODFW to shift their basin-
wide sampling efforts from

[[Page 7143]]

primarily focusing on isolated habitats or habitats with infrequent 
river connection to sampling frequently connected off-channel habitats. 
They sampled similar habitat in other recovery subbasins and found that 
the Oregon chub also occupied many of these frequently connected 
habitats. Between 2009 and 2012, ODFW discovered 28 additional Oregon 
chub populations throughout the 3 recovery subbasins (Bangs et al. 
2012, pp. 7-9).
    Several anthropogenic and natural environmental factors, discussed 
below, may continue to have effects on the Oregon chub and its habitat 
in the foreseeable future. Many of these factors are included in this 
discussion because they were previously identified as threats to the 
continued existence of the species in the listing and downlisting 
rules. Additionally, new factors affecting the species are discussed.
Activities Related to the Willamette Project
    The Oregon chub occupies 38 connected habitats that are downstream 
of Willamette Project dams or adjacent to reservoirs, and are thus 
influenced by Willamette Project operations. The Willamette Project 
biological opinions were signed in 2008 and continue until 2023 (NMFS 
2008, Service 2008b). In addition to normal operations of the 
Willamette Project, several actions required under the terms and 
conditions of the biological opinions may affect Oregon chub 
populations and habitat in the future.
    Temperature and flow augmentation--The USACE is implementing a 
number of structural and operational changes to alter flows and water 
temperatures downstream of Willamette Project dams to increase survival 
of federally listed salmon and steelhead (salmonids). These operational 
and structural changes have resulted in downstream water temperatures 
closer to natural conditions that existed prior to the construction of 
the dams (e.g., river temperatures downstream of the reservoirs are now 
warmer in early summer, and cooler in the late summer and early fall). 
The USACE is also operating to meet mainstem and tributary flow 
objectives identified in the Willamette Project biological opinion to 
benefit listed salmonids; these flows also benefit the Oregon chub by 
sustaining floodplain habitat downstream. In addition, the USACE is 
working with partners in the Willamette River basin as part of The 
Nature Conservancy's Sustainable Rivers Project to implement a set of 
environmental flow objectives designed to improve channel morphology in 
a manner that would create and sustain new, and improve existing, fish 
habitat (Gregory et al. 2007, p. 11). The effects of water flow 
augmentation and temperature normalization on fish communities in off-
channel habitat are largely unknown. ODFW has a monitoring program in 
place (Bangs et al. 2011) to detect any negative effects on the Oregon 
chub and its habitat. If the species is delisted as proposed in this 
rule, this monitoring program, which is detailed in our draft PDM plan, 
will continue for several years post-delisting (Service and ODFW 2013). 
The draft PDM plan identifies thresholds and responses for detecting 
and reacting to significant changes in Oregon chub protected habitat, 
distribution, and persistence. If declines are detected that exceed the 
thresholds, the Service, in combination with other PDM participants, 
will investigate causes of these declines and determine if the Oregon 
chub warrants expanded monitoring, additional research, additional 
habitat protection, or relisting as an endangered or threatened species 
under the Act.
    Reservoir drawdowns--As required in the NMFS biological opinion for 
the Willamette Project, the USACE is implementing an annual complete 
reservoir drawdown of Fall Creek Reservoir on the Middle Fork 
Willamette River. The biological objectives of the reservoir drawdown 
are to improve fish passage efficiency and survival of juvenile Chinook 
salmon migrating out of Fall Creek Reservoir and to reduce nonnative 
fish populations inhabiting the Fall Creek Reservoir. This is expected 
to result in reduced nonnative predation and competition with juvenile 
Chinook salmon rearing in the reservoir. While reservoir drawdown 
benefits Chinook salmon, there are potential negative effects to the 
Oregon chub from sedimentation of Oregon chub habitats.
    Willamette River basin flood control dams inhibit the transport of 
sediment downstream, causing sedimentation to occur in the reservoirs. 
During a complete reservoir drawdown, released reservoir water scours 
the reservoir bed and transports sediment downstream. During the Fall 
Creek drawdowns, a massive volume of silt, sand, and debris was 
flushed, causing sediment deposition to occur in off-channel habitats 
downstream of the dam. Sampling for Oregon chub populations in the Fall 
Creek drainage occurred after the first drawdown. Three previously 
undocumented Oregon chub populations were affected by sedimentation 
resulting from the drawdown. The extent to which these populations were 
affected is unknown because Oregon chub were discovered at these sites 
after the sedimentation occurred and we cannot determine the area of 
habitat or number of Oregon chub that existed prior to the 
sedimentation. Fewer than five Oregon chub were found in each of these 
three sites after the sedimentation occurred. These sites experienced 
the accumulation of fine sediments, perhaps beyond typical historical 
levels, which reduced the amount of habitat available to Oregon chub 
(Bangs 2013, pers. comm.). However, little sedimentation was observed 
in the few Oregon chub habitats that occur further downstream of the 
confluence of Fall Creek and the Middle Fork Willamette River. Most of 
the abundant populations of Oregon chub in off-channel habitats of the 
Middle Fork Willamette River were not affected because they occur 
upstream of this confluence.
    Although partial drawdowns of Willamette Project reservoirs are 
likely to occur in the near future, they are unlikely to result in 
large volumes of sediment moving downstream because the water level 
will remain above the sediment bed and little sediment will be moved. 
Complete reservoir drawdowns to the extent seen at Fall Creek are not 
currently planned at other reservoirs. The effects of a complete 
reservoir drawdown would vary by location; it is difficult to predict 
what habitat changes may occur downstream. However, any future proposal 
to implement this scale of drawdown will include extensive coordination 
and planning between the Service, ODFW, the USACE, and other land 
managers. Additionally, in cooperation with the USACE, we have 
developed monitoring guidance and recommended responses in the event a 
drawdown is planned (Service and ODFW 2013, pp. 18-19).
    Another concern related to drawdowns is that nonnative predatory 
fishes are common in reservoir habitats. During a drawdown, these fish 
are likely transported downstream, where they may invade off-channel 
habitats. The risks to the Oregon chub associated with nonnative fishes 
are discussed under Factors C and E, below.
    Reservoir water level fluctuations--Fluctuating water levels in 
Lookout Point Reservoir on the Middle Fork Willamette River may limit 
the breeding success of the Oregon chub population in Hospital Pond, 
which provides habitat for the species in a pool connected to the 
reservoir by a culvert (Service 2008b, p. 160). Between 2001 and 2003, 
the USACE, which manages Lookout Point Reservoir as part of the

[[Page 7144]]

Willamette Project, implemented a series of actions to protect the 
population of Oregon chub in Hospital Pond. The goal was to allow the 
USACE to manage the water level in Lookout Point Reservoir 
independently of the water elevation in Hospital Pond. In order to 
achieve this, they installed a gate on Hospital Pond's outlet culvert 
and lined the porous berm between the pond and reservoir (Service 2002, 
pp. 1-11). They also excavated additional areas to create more suitable 
spawning habitat in the pond (Service 2003, pp. 1-3). Despite these 
actions, water elevation in Hospital Pond continues to be influenced by 
reservoir water levels. Hospital Pond currently supports a large, 
stable population of the Oregon chub; however, future Willamette 
Project operations may result in reservoir elevations that are below 
the levels necessary to inundate the spawning habitat in Hospital Pond 
(Service 2008b, p. 160). This reduction in spawning habitat may result 
in limited breeding success for the Oregon chub in Hospital Pond into 
the foreseeable future. However, the Hospital Pond population is not 
considered as vital as we once thought because additional surveys in 
the Middle Fork Willamette River subbasin have found that the subbasin 
has the highest number of Oregon chub populations (33 populations) 
across the range of the species. Currently, 15 of the Oregon chub sites 
in this subbasin have abundant (greater than 500 individuals) 
populations of the Oregon chub. This redundancy of large populations 
provides additional security to the species in the event that single 
populations decline.
    Inability to meet minimum flow targets--During low water or drought 
years, the USACE may not be able to meet the seasonal minimum water 
flow targets established in the Willamette Project biological opinions. 
This may have negative effects on Oregon chub habitat downstream 
through a temporary reduction in pond volume and increased water 
temperatures. Under the floodplain study, the ODFW has mapped the 
bathymetry and installed equipment to measure pond elevation, area, 
volume, and temperature in Oregon chub sites that are influenced by 
Willamette Project flows. This information has been used to determine 
the effect that low flows may have on the extent of habitat area 
available to the Oregon chub. The USACE has considered these data in 
managing flows and has a notification process in place to coordinate 
with the Service and ODFW during low water periods before flows are 
reduced to levels below the minimum flow targets. To date, except for 
during malfunctions and emergency operations explained below, flows 
below minimum targets have been of short duration and have not resulted 
in observable adverse effects to Oregon chub populations (Bangs 2013, 
pers. comm.).
    The minimum flow targets protect not only the Oregon chub, but many 
other native aquatic species, including listed salmonids. If the Oregon 
chub is delisted, these minimum flow targets will continue to be 
required under existing biological opinions from the Service and NMFS 
on the Willamette Project for listed bull trout, Chinook salmon, and 
steelhead. Moreover, the USACE was proactive in implementing 
recommended flows before the Willamette Project biological opinions 
were completed (USACE 2007, pp. 3-19). Therefore, we anticipate that 
the USACE will continue to meet these minimum flow targets after 
delisting of the Oregon chub, except under infrequent, extreme 
conditions such as drought.
    Willamette Project malfunctions and emergency operations resulting 
in the USACE not meeting minimum flow targets or necessitating 
restrictions on reservoir pool elevations have affected Oregon chub 
habitats. These incidents have been infrequent, but resulted in short-
term negative effects on a few Oregon chub populations. For instance, 
in 2009, two of the three spillway gates at the USACE Big Cliff dam on 
the North Santiam River failed (Bangs et al. 2010b, p. 16). While 
repairing the gates, the outflow from Big Cliff Dam was reduced to 
below the minimum summer flow target. Record high air temperatures 
coincided with the low flow levels. Monitoring during this event 
detected that three Oregon chub sites downstream were nearly desiccated 
and fish mortalities were observed. Screened pumps were used to 
increase the volume of water in the ponds and to reduce water 
temperatures. The effects of this incident on Oregon chub populations 
were short term, and the numbers of the Oregon chub in these three 
populations have either increased or are exhibiting a stable trend 
(Bangs et al. 2012, pp. 7-9).
    Additionally, in 2010, the USACE determined that the condition and 
reliability of the spillway gates at Willamette Project dams 
represented an unacceptable risk to public safety (USACE 2011, p. 1). 
To mitigate this risk, they proposed to implement pool elevation 
restrictions at Willamette Project reservoirs to lower than normal 
levels to support maintenance and repair of the spillway gates. The 
imposed restrictions at Dexter Reservoir were likely to reduce the pond 
level at the adjacent Oregon chub site, PIT1 alcove, below levels 
critical for Oregon chub survival. The PIT1 alcove had filled in with 
sediment over the years and in consultation with the USACE it was 
determined that removing some of this sediment was the best measure to 
prevent desiccation of the pond. Prior to removing sediment, the ODFW 
captured and relocated a total of 1,127 Oregon chub to Hills Creek 
Pond, a site with perennial flow located on USACE property at Hills 
Creek Dam. This site is within the historical range of the Oregon chub, 
but at the time was not occupied by the species. The pond site is 
adjacent to the Middle Fork Willamette River and has historically been 
managed by USACE staff for wildlife habitat enhancement. The spillway 
gate repairs were completed, the pool elevation restriction for Dexter 
Reservoir was lifted in 2011, and the reservoir has returned to normal 
operations. The Oregon chub population abundance in PIT1 alcove is 
currently stable and has met the recovery criteria for delisting (Bangs 
et al. 2012, p. 9). The translocation of the Oregon chub into Hills 
Creek Pond has provided a large, secure habitat for the species and the 
population is now the largest Oregon chub population within the Middle 
Fork Willamette River subbasin with an estimated abundance of 13,460 
Oregon chub (Bangs et al. 2012, p. 9).
Siltation Resulting From Timber Harvest
    Excessive siltation from ground-disturbing activities in the 
watershed, such as timber harvest upstream of Oregon chub habitat, can 
degrade or destroy Oregon chub habitat. Minimum riparian management 
areas, required by the Oregon Forest Practices Act, may be protective 
of aquatic habitat depending on the harvest methods used (e.g., 
clearcut versus thinning) and the topography of the land where timber 
is being harvested, although monitoring water bodies for siltation is 
not required after harvest.
    In the 1990s, timber harvest occurred on lands upstream of East 
Fork Minnow Creek. Flood events in the watershed in 1996, 1997, and 
1998 caused accelerated siltation into East Fork Minnow Creek Pond, a 
downstream pond that is occupied by Oregon chub, and over half of the 
habitat was lost (Scheerer 2009, pers. comm.). The Oregon chub 
population in East Fork Minnow Creek Pond declined dramatically 
following these events (Scheerer 2009, pers. comm.). In 2010, the 
Oregon

[[Page 7145]]

Department of Transportation excavated accumulated sediment in the pond 
and created a pool that will provide a buffer from the effects of 
future siltation. This Oregon chub population has increased in 
abundance from 1,340 Oregon chub in 2009 to 3,330 Oregon chub in 2012. 
The population has also met the delisting criterion for a stable or 
increasing trend over 7 years.
    In 2012, timber harvest occurred upstream of an Oregon chub site on 
William L. Finley National Wildlife Refuge (Finley NWR) known as Gray 
Creek Swamp. Prior to this timber harvest, we negotiated with the 
landowner who agreed to increase the width of the riparian area not 
subject to timber harvest in order to reduce the risk of siltation in 
Oregon chub habitat downstream. To date, siltation of this Oregon chub 
habitat has not been observed, but the site will continue to be 
monitored by ODFW during the proposed 9-year post-delisting monitoring 
period.
    The potential for adverse effects to Oregon chub habitat from 
logging has also been identified at three other sites: Dexter Reservoir 
PIT1 alcove, Buckhead Creek, and Wicopee Pond (Scheerer 2008, pers. 
comm.). However, to date we have not observed levels of siltation at 
these sites that have resulted in habitat loss, and the Oregon chub 
populations within each of the five sites located downstream of timber 
activities all met the delisting criteria in 2012. Therefore, although 
siltation from timber harvest could have effects on the Oregon chub and 
its habitat, it has not been observed at levels that are causing 
declines in Oregon chub population abundance.
Floods and Seasonal High-Water Events
    The Oregon chub is a low-elevation floodplain dependent species 
that evolved under dynamic environmental conditions created by seasonal 
flooding and droughts. As a result, the species' life history reflects 
these dynamic conditions. While floods and seasonal high-water events 
constitute a potential stressor to individuals or specific Oregon chub 
populations, these events create and maintain off-channel habitats 
necessary for the long-term persistence of the species, and they 
function to transport the Oregon chub to colonize these new sites.
    For example, in 2007, a flood event in the Santiam River caused 
channel avulsion (a shift in the stream channel that results in the 
rapid abandonment of a river channel and formation of a new river 
channel) at an Oregon chub site, reducing the extent of habitat 
available at this location and likely negatively affecting this 
population Yet in another example, between 2000 and 2003, new off-
channel habitat was formed in the McKenzie River due to flooding and, 
after aquatic vegetation became established, the site was subsequently 
colonized by the Oregon chub (Bangs 2013, pers. comm.). Although we are 
unable to predict the magnitude or the extent to which current Oregon 
chub habitats may be affected by flooding and seasonal high water 
events, the number and distribution of large populations, in 
combination with habitat heterogeneity, increases the species' 
resiliency in recovering from periodic disturbances, as the species 
would have historically.
Water Quality Issues
    The analysis of threats in the final rule to list the Oregon chub 
as an endangered species and the recovery plan for the species 
discussed numerous potential threats to water quality in Oregon chub 
habitats. However, in the 20 years since the Oregon chub was listed, 
only a few of these concerns, discussed below, have materialized, and 
even then, these were localized and of short duration.
    In the spring of 2011, ODFW noted the complete die-off of the 
introduced Oregon chub population in Cheadle Pond on the Finley NWR. 
They assessed the water quality (temperature, pH, and dissolved oxygen) 
and discovered that the pH level was abnormally high (mean pH: 9.6, 
range: 8.4-10.2). The pH level in Oregon chub habitats typically ranges 
between 7.42 and 8.66. The cause of the increased pH level was unknown 
and has not been observed previously at this site. We have not 
observed, and do not anticipate, similar incidents in other Oregon chub 
habitats. ODFW subsequently conducted an in-situ 7-day bioassay using 
30 adult Oregon chub from the Gray Creek Swamp population. All of the 
Oregon chub survived the trial and were released into Cheadle Pond 
following the bioassay. In April 2012, ODFW confirmed the survival of 
the Oregon chub that were moved and found that the pH of the water in 
Cheadle Pond had decreased and was more typical of pH levels observed 
in other Oregon chub habitats (mean pH: 7.97, range: 7.42-8.66). An 
additional 184 Oregon chub were translocated from the Gray Creek Swamp 
population to Cheadle Pond to reestablish the population.
    Nutrient enrichment may have caused the extirpation of the Oregon 
chub population at Oakridge Slough in the Middle Fork Willamette River 
subbasin. The slough is downstream from the Oakridge Sewage Treatment 
Plant, and increased nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations were 
detected in the slough prior to a decline in the population. While the 
nutrient concentrations are not believed to be directly harmful to the 
species, the elevated nutrient levels may have contributed to habitat 
conditions that were unsuitable for Oregon chub (i.e., an increase in 
growth of algae, which then decomposed and led to low oxygen conditions 
below what the Oregon chub requires to survive) (Buck 2003, p. 12).
    Several Oregon chub sites are located adjacent to agricultural 
land. Runoff from farm fields may contain pesticides or fertilizers 
that could adversely affect the water quality in Oregon chub habitats. 
However, many of these sites have protective vegetated buffers between 
crops and the aquatic habitat. To date, we have not observed declines 
in Oregon chub populations that can be attributed to agricultural 
practices, and several Oregon chub habitats located adjacent to 
farmland have supported abundant populations of Oregon chub for many 
years.
    Several Oregon chub sites are located adjacent to private 
forestland (as previously discussed above under ``Sedimentation 
Resulting From Timber Harvest''). Additionally, several Oregon chub 
sites are managed by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) within the 
Willamette National Forest. Forests managed by the USFS operate under 
land and resource management plans that include management practices 
protective of fish (USFS 1990, pp. IV-61-64), and we anticipate these 
resource management plans will continue to guide forest management into 
the future. On private forestland, the use of chemicals is regulated by 
the Oregon Department of Forestry, and operators are required to comply 
with product labels and additional protective measures to protect 
waters of the State, including leaving untreated vegetated buffers and 
limiting aerial applications near areas of standing open water larger 
than one-quarter acre (ORS 527.765 and OAR 629-620-0000 through 629-
620-0800). Although we have no information regarding landowners' 
compliance with these rules on forestland in the vicinity of Oregon 
chub habitats, we have not observed harmful effects to Oregon chub 
populations due to chemical exposure related to forestry operations.
Aggradation
    Aggradation is an alluvial process where sediment deposition is 
more rapid than the capacity of a river to transport sediment 
downstream. We have observed aggradation at the Geren Island North 
Channel in the North Santiam River. Natural movement of the river 
channel changed sediment

[[Page 7146]]

deposition in the upstream end of this location, which had the 
potential to block water flow into the site. The City of Salem, which 
manages the site, excavated a portion of the channel to allow free-
flowing water to enter the Oregon chub habitat. To date, we have not 
observed a decline in the Geren Island population; with the exceptions 
of this site and habitats in Fall Creek, which we discussed previously, 
no other Oregon chub habitats are currently being negatively impacted 
by aggradation.
Succession
    Succession resulting from the manipulation of river flows was 
identified as a potential threat to Oregon chub habitat in the 
downlisting rule (75 FR 21179, April 23, 2010). Succession is a 
natural, long-term process that ponds go through as they mature. As 
vegetation dies back seasonally, it is deposited on the substrate of 
the pond, causing a reduction in water depth over time. Eventually, 
plant communities shift from aquatic to amphibious wetland plants, and 
the open water pond will be replaced by seasonal wetland and marsh 
habitat. Historically, seasonal high flows and alluvial floodplain 
processes created off-channel habitat, and rejuvenated existing 
habitats by flushing out sediment and diversifying the aquatic plant 
community. These processes no longer function as they did historically 
because flows are regulated under the USACE's Willamette Project. 
However, in the Willamette River basin, the USACE recently began 
implementing environmental flows recommended by The Nature 
Conservancy's Sustainable Rivers Project. These recommendations call 
for a more natural flow regime, which includes high-magnitude flows to 
create and rejuvenate off-channel habitats. Given the memorandum of 
understanding between the USACE and The Nature Conservancy regarding 
the Sustainable Rivers Project, and the minimum flows required under 
existing biological opinions from the Service and NMFS, we anticipate 
flow management trending towards natural flow regimes below Willamette 
Project dams will continue to create and rejuvenate off-channel 
habitats to the benefit of the Oregon chub into the future.
    We are not aware of any particular sites that are vulnerable to 
succession in the near future; however, the sites that remain 
hydrologically isolated during high flows are cut off from these 
natural processes, and succession may continue resulting in a reduction 
of open water habitat. For instance, succession occurred at Herman 
Pond, an isolated Oregon chub site in the Coast Fork Willamette basin, 
which led to a reduction in habitat area and a decline in population 
abundance. In 2005, the site was excavated to remove successional 
vegetation. This activity was successful in increasing open water 
habitat and led to an increase in Oregon chub abundance at this 
location. Given the wide distribution and number of Oregon chub 
habitats under different land ownership, we are uncertain whether 
manual modification of chub habitats to reverse the effects of 
succession will occur in the future following delisting. However, given 
that we are not aware of any particular sites vulnerable to succession 
in the foreseeable future, we consider the potential negative impact to 
the Oregon chub from succession to be very low.
Irrigation Withdrawals
    A few Oregon chub sites may be influenced by irrigation water 
withdrawals. In recent years, at Elijah Bristow Berry Slough in the 
Middle Fork Willamette River subbasin, a drop in summer water level and 
a significant decline in Oregon chub abundance coincided with increased 
irrigation use by a farm located upstream. However, this was an 
isolated event that we have not observed at other sites. Many Oregon 
chub populations occur on publicly owned lands or on areas managed for 
conservation, where direct water withdrawals do not occur. In addition, 
water levels at habitats adjacent to mainstem river channels are highly 
dependent on river flow, and are less likely to be negatively impacted 
by irrigation withdrawals due to the amount of hyporheic (subsurface) 
flow into these habitats from the adjacent river.
Summary of Factor A
    Many of the factors discussed above were previously identified as 
threats to the continued existence of the Oregon chub. These factors 
include activities associated with the operation of the Willamette 
Project dams, sedimentation from timber harvest, floods or high-water 
events, water quality issues, and succession. Modifications that 
resulted in the way the Willamette Project dams are currently operated 
have provided flows that create and sustain off-channel habitat used by 
the Oregon chub, and we anticipate these flow targets will continue 
into the future due to requirements under biological opinions from the 
Service and NMFS, and the Sustainable Rivers Project collaboration 
between USACE and The Nature Conservancy. Sedimentation from timber 
harvest is not currently indicated in the decline of any Oregon chub 
populations, and riparian buffers protected from timber harvest under 
State and Federal regulations are expected to provide habitat 
protection in future timber harvest operations. Flooding and high-water 
events are largely unpredictable; however, the Oregon chub evolved 
within a dynamic environment and the current distribution of the Oregon 
chub in many abundant populations within subbasins and across multiple 
subbasins reduces the risk that these events will affect a large 
proportion of the Oregon chub and its habitat. Water quality issues 
have the potential to affect individual populations but few 
observations of negative effects due to water quality issues have 
materialized over the past 21 years that we have been monitoring Oregon 
chub populations. Succession has been documented at one Oregon chub 
site and may occur in the future, particularly at sites that are 
isolated from the floodplain. However, succession is a slow process 
that can be addressed through ongoing monitoring and habitat 
management, and is not currently a cause for concern at any of our 
known sites.
    Other factors that may affect the Oregon chub and its habitat 
include actions required under the terms and conditions of the 
Willamette Project biological opinions, aggradation, and irrigation 
withdrawals. Actions required under the Willamette Project biological 
opinions began in 2008, but the effects to Oregon chub habitat from 
these actions are not well understood, as the focus of most of these 
actions is recovery of listed salmonids. Research into the effects of 
these actions on off-channel habitats started in 2009 and is continuing 
for the next few years. This research may lead to an improved 
understanding of the habitat characteristics that support abundant 
populations of the Oregon chub in connected habitats and flow 
management recommendations specific to maintaining Oregon chub habitat. 
Aggradation from natural causes has been identified at one Oregon chub 
site, and aggradation from a complete drawdown of Fall Creek Reservoir 
resulted in large deposits of sediment in three, previously unknown, 
Oregon chub habitats. Other than these events, aggradation has not been 
observed at Oregon chub sites. Irrigation withdrawal has been observed 
to negatively affect the volume of water available in one Oregon chub 
habitat in the Middle Fork River subbasin, but is not considered a 
widespread concern throughout the range of the Oregon chub.

[[Page 7147]]

    In summary, the factors discussed under Factor A continue to occur 
across the subbasins occupied by the Oregon chub, but only a few 
populations have exhibited declines as a result of any of the factors 
or combination of factors. The threat of habitat loss has been reduced 
by changes in flow management and by introducing the species into 
secure, isolated habitats that are not influenced by floodplain 
processes. We also have a better understanding of the diversity of 
connected habitats used by the Oregon chub and have discovered many 
abundant populations in these habitats across multiple subbasins. 
Therefore, based on the best available information and because we 
expect that current management practices will continue into the future, 
we conclude that the present or threatened destruction, modification, 
or curtailment of its habitat or range does not constitute a 
substantial threat to the Oregon chub now and is not expected to in the 
future.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes was not a factor in listing, nor is it currently 
known to be a threat to the Oregon chub.

C. Disease or Predation

Predation by Nonnative Fishes and Amphibians
    In the final rule to downlist the Oregon chub (75 FR 21179), we 
identified predation and competition with nonnative fishes as the 
primary threat to recovery of the Oregon chub (competition with 
nonnative fishes is addressed below under Factor E). The Willamette 
River basin contains 31 native fish species and 29 nonnative species 
(Hulse et al. 2002, p. 44). The large-scale alteration of the 
Willamette River basin's hydrologic system (i.e., construction of dams 
and the resultant changes in flood frequency and intensity) has created 
conditions that favor nonnative, predatory fishes, and reservoirs 
throughout the basin have become sources of continual nonnative fish 
invasions in the downstream reaches (Li et al. 1987, p. 198). 
Significant declines in Oregon chub abundance due to the presence of 
nonnative fishes have been documented. For instance, after floods in 
1996, nonnative fish were first collected from several sites containing 
the Oregon chub in the Santiam River drainage; the two largest 
populations of Oregon chub (Geren Island North Pond and Santiam 
Easement) subsequently declined sharply in abundance (Scheerer 2002, p. 
1076).
    Game fish, which prey upon the Oregon chub, have also been 
intentionally introduced into Oregon chub habitats. For example, 
illegal planting of largemouth bass at East Ferrin Pond in the Middle 
Fork Willamette River drainage coincided with the collapse of an Oregon 
chub population that had once totaled more than 7,000 fish. Regulatory 
mechanisms are in place to prevent the translocation of nonnative fish. 
Within the State of Oregon, with few exceptions, it is unlawful to 
transport, release or attempt to release any live fish into the waters 
of this State (Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 635-007-0600). 
Although similar illegal introductions may still occur in the future, 
they have historically been infrequent in habitats known to be occupied 
by the Oregon chub.
    Predatory, nonnative centrarchids (bass and sunfish) and Ameiurus 
spp. (bullhead catfish) are common in the off-channel habitats 
preferred by the Oregon chub (Scheerer 2002, p. 1075), and the Oregon 
chub is most abundant at sites where nonnative fishes are absent 
(Scheerer 2007, p. 96). However, ODFW biologists have recently found 
many abundant Oregon chub populations that coexist with nonnative fish 
in hydrologically connected habitats (Bangs et al. 2011, pp. 21-24). 
One of the primary objectives of the floodplain study funded under the 
Willamette Project biological opinion (Service 2008b, see previous 
discussion under Factor A) is to examine the relationship between the 
environmental conditions at hydrologically connected sites and the fish 
community, with a focus on the Oregon chub and nonnative fish. Research 
conducted under the study will continue to improve our understanding of 
the effects that nonnative fishes have on the Oregon chub in these 
connected habitats and will continue to try to explain the habitat 
conditions that allow the species to coexist. It is apparent from the 
sampling results to date that the Oregon chub is coexisting with 
nonnatives more frequently than previously known. The results to date 
indicate that spatial and seasonal differences in temperature within 
these off-channel habitats may be providing areas that are suitable for 
Oregon chub but are not suitable for nonnatives. In other words, the 
species may be able to coexist because the habitat provides a diverse 
range of temperatures that appears to result in some habitat 
partitioning among the species (Bangs et al. 2011, pp. 9-10, 16-17). 
Currently, 41 percent of all known Oregon chub habitats and 26 percent 
of the habitats supporting abundant populations (more than 500 Oregon 
chub) contain nonnative fishes.
    In the recovery plan, we also identified predation by bullfrogs as 
a potential threat to the Oregon chub (Service 1998, p. 13), but we no 
longer consider this to be true. Bullfrogs are prevalent in most of the 
habitats occupied by the Oregon chub and their presence has not been 
correlated to a decline in the abundance of Oregon chub populations 
(Bangs 2013, pers. comm.). The Oregon chub is not known to be 
threatened by disease.

Summary of Factor C

    Although the habitat conditions that allow the Oregon chub to 
coexist with nonnative fish are not yet well understood, we have 
documented several Oregon chub populations, in multiple subbasins, that 
are abundant despite the presence of nonnative, predatory fish. These 
Oregon chub populations exist in habitat that is connected to the 
active floodplain. Ongoing research conducted under the floodplain 
study funded by the USACE will continue to improve our understanding of 
the interactions between the Oregon chub and nonnative fishes.
    While the presence of nonnative fishes in isolated sites may be 
associated with higher rates of predation on the Oregon chub, the 
species has been introduced into 20 isolated habitats that are 
generally protected from the risk of invasion by nonnative fishes due 
to the habitat distance from the floodplain or other fish barriers. 
During major flooding in the Willamette Basin in 1996, these sites 
remained isolated from neighboring water bodies. The Oregon chub in 
these secure, isolated sites currently account for more than 70 percent 
of all Oregon chub individuals. Therefore, based on the best available 
information, we conclude that disease and predation do not constitute 
substantial threats to the Oregon chub now or in the future.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    In evaluating the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, we 
first identify threats under one or more of the other four factors that 
are affecting the species to the extent it meets the definition of a 
threatened or endangered species under the Act. We then identify and 
evaluate the adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms that are 
designed to prevent or reduce those threats. The Oregon chub, however, 
is

[[Page 7148]]

no longer facing threats to its long-term survival under the other four 
factors, thus the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms is also 
no longer a threat to the species' continued existence. Therefore, our 
discussion herein focuses on regulatory mechanisms, not previously 
discussed, that may provide benefits to the Oregon chub.
    The Oregon chub is designated as ``Sensitive-Critical'' by ODFW. 
Although this designation is a nonregulatory tool, it helps focus 
wildlife management and research activities, with the goal of 
preventing species from declining to the point of qualifying as 
``threatened'' or ``endangered'' under the Oregon Endangered Species 
Act (Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 496.171, 496.172, 496.176, 496.182 
and 496.192). Sensitive-Critical designation encourages, but does not 
require, the implementation of conservation actions for the species; 
however, other State agencies, such as the Oregon Department of State 
Lands (DSL) and the Water Resources Department, refer to the Sensitive 
Species List when making regulatory decisions.
    Wetlands and waterways in Oregon are protected by both Federal and 
State laws. Under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the USACE 
regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the 
United States, including navigable waters and wetlands that may contain 
the Oregon chub. Oregon's Removal-Fill Law (ORS 196.795-990) requires 
people who plan to remove or fill material in waters of the State to 
obtain a permit from the DSL. Projects impacting waters often require 
both a State removal-fill permit, issued by the DSL, and a Federal 
permit issued by the USACE. A permit is required only if 50 cubic yards 
or more of fill or removal will occur. The removal-fill law does not 
regulate the draining of wetlands. Projects permitted under these 
programs must avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands or waterways, or 
propose mitigation to replace the functions and values lost as a result 
of the project (DSL 2013, p. 64). Some actions, however, such as 
irrigation diversion structure construction and maintenance and other 
activities associated with ongoing farming operations in existing 
cropped wetlands, are exempt from CWA requirements. Additionally, 
projects authorized under a nationwide USACE permit program receive 
minimal public and agency review unless the action may affect a listed 
species, in which case, a consultation under section 7 of the Act would 
be required. Individual permits are subject to a more rigorous review, 
and may be required for nationwide permit activities with more than 
minimal impacts.
    Under section 303(c) of the CWA, States are required to adopt water 
quality standards to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and 
biological integrity of the Nation's waters. Oregon adopted revised 
water quality standards for toxic pollutants in 2004. These standards 
are intended to protect native aquatic species, and are regulated by 
the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. The State implements 
the standards through listing of waters that exceed criteria on the 
section 303(d) list of the CWA, calculating the Total Maximum Daily 
Loads (the maximum amount of pollutants that may enter a stream), and 
issuing or reissuing permits (i.e., National Pollutant Discharge 
Elimination System). In 2012, we completed consultation under section 7 
of the Act on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed 
approval of the State of Oregon's water quality criteria for toxic 
pollutants (Service 2012). Although some Oregon chub sites may be 
affected by point-source discharges (i.e., wastewater treatment 
facilities and stormwater discharge from a manufacturing plant) and 
non-point-source discharges (i.e., runoff of agricultural and forestry 
pesticides and fertilizers) of toxic chemicals, in our consultation 
with the EPA, we determined that the Oregon chub's exposure to these 
chemicals at the criteria levels and the resulting effects would not 
jeopardize the species' continued existence, adversely modify or 
destroy Oregon chub critical habitat, nor reach levels preventing the 
Oregon chub from attaining the abundance and distribution criteria for 
delisting identified in the recovery plan (Service 2012, pp. 351-352).
Summary of Factor D
    Although existing regulatory mechanisms offer limited protection to 
the Oregon chub, we have no indication that other factors, which these 
mechanisms are designed to address, are likely to occur at such a 
magnitude as negatively to impact large numbers of the Oregon chub or a 
substantial area of habitat. Therefore, based on the best available 
information, we conclude that the inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms does not constitute a substantial threat to the Oregon chub 
now or in the future.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

Interspecific Competition with Nonnative Fishes and Amphibians
    Along with the adverse impacts of direct predation described in 
Factor C (above), nonnative fishes compete with the Oregon chub for 
food resources, such as aquatic invertebrates. Competition with 
nonnative fishes may contribute to the decline in populations or 
exclusion of the Oregon chub from suitable habitats. Observed feeding 
strategies and diet of nonnative fishes, particularly juvenile 
centrarchids and adult mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) overlap with 
those described for the Oregon chub (Li et al. 1987, pp. 197-198). At 
South Stayton Pond, a hydrologically isolated site in the Santiam River 
basin, we observed a population of 6,200 Oregon chub decline to 2,000 
after invasion by mosquitofish, a nonnative fish too small to act as a 
predator on the Oregon chub. The source of this invasion is unknown, 
but it is likely that the mosquitofish were illegally introduced into 
the pond. The population has remained around 2,000 for the past 3 years 
(Bangs 2013, pers. comm.), demonstrating the ability of nonnative fish 
to competitively suppress Oregon chub populations. It is possible that 
other populations of the Oregon chub are being suppressed by 
competition with nonnative fishes. The current abundance of the Oregon 
chub and distribution throughout floodplain habitats in the Santiam, 
McKenzie, and Middle Fork Willamette Rivers indicates that competition 
by nonnative fish is not affecting Oregon chub populations to the 
degree that population declines may be observed.
    Bullfrogs were identified as a threat to the Oregon chub in the 
recovery plan (Service 1998, p. 13) because they may compete with the 
Oregon chub for food resources (e.g., invertebrates). However, 
bullfrogs are prevalent in most of the habitats occupied by the Oregon 
chub and their presence has not been correlated with a decline in 
Oregon chub abundance (Bangs 2013, pers. comm.).
Isolated Populations
    Twenty-eight populations of the Oregon chub are currently isolated; 
20 of these sites are introduction sites where isolation was 
intentional in order to provide refugia from the threat of nonnative 
fishes. Other sites are isolated due to the reduced frequency and 
magnitude of flood events and the presence of migration barriers such 
as beaver dams. Managing species in isolation may have genetic

[[Page 7149]]

consequences. Burkey (1989, p. 78) concluded that, when species are 
isolated by fragmented habitats, low rates of population growth are 
typical in local populations, and their probability of extinction is 
directly related to the degree of isolation and fragmentation. Without 
sufficient immigration, growth of local populations may be low, and 
probability of extinction, high (Burkey 1989, p. 78). Although a recent 
genetic analysis found that the Oregon chub in isolated habitats has 
levels of genetic diversity equal to or greater than other cyprinids, 
additional Oregon chub may need to be introduced into these isolated 
populations in the future to maintain genetic diversity in the event a 
population shows a significant decline.
    In the final rule to reclassify the Oregon chub to threatened, we 
expressed concern about genetic isolation due to the lack of habitat 
connectivity between Oregon chub populations. As we stated above in 
Factor A, we have discovered that many of the habitats occupied by the 
Oregon chub connect to the adjacent river channel more frequently and 
for longer duration than previously understood, which may provide 
opportunities for genetic dispersal. Currently, 51 Oregon chub 
populations are located in habitat that experiences some level of 
connectivity to the adjacent river channel; 28 of these populations 
have been discovered since we downlisted the Oregon chub to threatened 
status in 2010. Furthermore, ODFW recently documented the Oregon chub 
in habitat newly created by floodplain processes in the McKenzie River 
subbasin and documented volitional upstream movement of marked Oregon 
chub between populations in the Middle Fork Willamette River (Bangs et 
al. 2012, p. 19) and McKenzie River subbasins (Bangs 2013, pers. 
comm.). These findings demonstrate the ability of the Oregon chub to 
colonize new habitats and the potential to exchange genetic material 
between established populations.
Climate Change
    Climate change presents substantial uncertainty regarding the 
future environmental conditions in the Willamette River basin and is 
expected to place an added stress on the species and its habitats. The 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded that 
recent warming is already strongly affecting aquatic biological 
systems; this is evident in increased runoff and earlier spring peak 
discharge in many glacier- and snow-fed rivers (IPCC 2007, p. 8). 
Projections for climate change in North America include decreased 
snowpack, more winter flooding, and reduced summer flows (IPCC 2007, p. 
14). Projections for climate change in the Willamette Valley in the 
next century include higher air temperatures that will lead to lower 
soil moisture and increased evaporation from streams and lakes (Climate 
Leadership Initiative (CLI) and the National Center for Conservation 
Science and Policy 2009, p. 9). While forecasters have high uncertainty 
regarding the total precipitation projections for the region, effective 
precipitation (precipitation that contributes to runoff) may be reduced 
significantly even if total precipitation does not decline (CLI and the 
National Center for Conservation Science and Policy 2009, p. 9).
    Although climate change is almost certain to affect aquatic 
habitats in the Willamette River basin (CLI 2009, p. 1), researchers 
have great uncertainty about the specific effects of climate change on 
the Oregon chub. The Service has developed a strategic plan to address 
the threat of climate change to vulnerable species and ecosystems; 
goals of this plan include maintaining ecosystem integrity by 
protecting and restoring key ecological processes such as nutrient 
cycling, natural disturbance cycles, and predator-prey relationships 
(Service 2010; p. 23). The Oregon chub recovery program worked to 
establish conditions that allow populations of the Oregon chub to be 
resilient to changing environmental conditions and to persist as viable 
populations into the future. Our recovery program for the species 
focused on maintaining large populations distributed across the 
species' entire historical range in a variety of ecological settings 
(e.g., across a range of elevations). This approach is consistent with 
the general principles of conservation biology. In their review of 
minimum population viability literature, Traill et al. (2009, p. 3) 
found that maintenance of large populations across a range of 
ecological settings increases the likelihood of species persistence 
under the pressures of environmental variation, and facilitates the 
retention of important adaptive traits through the maintenance of 
genetic diversity. Maintaining multiple populations across a range of 
ecological settings, as described in the recovery plan, increases the 
likelihood that many abundant populations will persist under the 
stresses of a changing climate.
Summary of Factor E
    Interspecific competition with nonnative fishes, isolation from 
genetic exchange, and climate change may affect Oregon chub populations 
in the future. However, we have only observed population declines 
related to competition with nonnative fishes in one Oregon chub 
population, which occurs in a small habitat area with limited 
resources. Although this decline was substantial (abundance of 6,000 
chub declined to 2,000 chub in one season), the population has since 
stabilized and persists with about 2,000 chub (Bangs et al. 2012, p. 
8). We have documented numerous additional abundant Oregon chub 
populations in habitats that are connected to the floodplain, which 
facilitates potential genetic exchange between populations. This has 
reduced the risk of a reduction in genetic diversity. The risks 
associated with climate change have been reduced by the distribution of 
many abundant populations in diverse habitats across multiple 
subbasins. Therefore, based on the best available information, we 
conclude that other natural or manmade factors do not constitute a 
substantial threat to the Oregon chub now or in the future.
Cumulative Impacts
    Some of the factors discussed in the previous five-factor analysis 
could work in concert with one another or synergistically to create 
cumulative impacts to Oregon chub populations. For example, effects 
from flow and temperature changes downstream of Willamette Project dams 
may coincide with an increase in nonnative fish species that prey upon 
and compete with Oregon chub. Although the types, magnitude, or extent 
of cumulative impacts are difficult to predict, we are not aware of any 
combination of factors that has not already, or would not be, addressed 
through ongoing conservation measures that we expect to continue post-
delisting and into the future, as described above. The best scientific 
and commercial data available indicates that the species is genetically 
diverse, abundant, and well-distributed throughout the recovery 
subbasins and that the factors are not currently, nor are they 
anticipated to, cumulatively cause declines in Oregon chub populations 
or its habitat.
Overall Summary of Factors Affecting Oregon Chub
    The primary factors that threatened the Oregon chub were loss of 
habitat, predation and competition by nonnative fishes, and the 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. The threats that led to 
the species being listed under the Act have been removed or ameliorated 
by the actions of multiple conservation partners over the last 20 
years. The

[[Page 7150]]

introduction of the Oregon chub into several secure habitats has 
provided populations that are isolated from the threats of habitat loss 
and invasion by nonnative fishes. The discovery of many natural 
populations, including a number of populations that are connected to 
the active floodplain and coexist with nonnative fishes, has increased 
our understanding of population persistence in spite of the presence of 
predators in the species' environment. The implementation of minimum 
water flows from Willamette Project dams that sustain floodplain 
habitat downstream has reduced the risk of habitat loss due to altered 
flows. The acquisition of floodplain habitat for long-term conservation 
and restoration has provided assurance that Oregon chub habitat will 
continue to be managed for the species into the future.
    Many factors still exist that may affect Oregon chub populations; 
however, most of these factors have been isolated incidents, and the 
magnitude of their effects have not been observed on a wide scale 
across the distribution of Oregon chub populations. The abundance and 
distribution of known Oregon chub populations has increased each year 
since the downlisting and has exceeded the goals of our recovery 
criteria for delisting. When the species was listed in 1993, only nine 
populations of the Oregon chub within a small, restricted range were 
known to occur. Oregon chub populations are now known to exist in 79 
diverse habitats across multiple subbasins. Listing the species under 
the Act resulted in the implementation of focused recovery actions that 
have led to protected, abundant, and well-distributed Oregon chub 
populations across several Willamette River basin tributaries. We 
expect conservation efforts will continue to support persistent 
recovered Oregon chub populations post-delisting and in to the future, 
as described above. Based on this assessment of factors potentially 
impacting the species, we consider the Oregon chub to have no 
substantial threats now or in the future.

Finding

    An assessment of the need for a species' protection under the Act 
is based on whether a species is in danger of extinction or likely to 
become so because of any 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. As required by section 4(a)(1) of 
the Act, we conducted a review of the status of this species and 
assessed the five factors to evaluate whether the Oregon chub 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 reviewed the 
information available in our files and other available published and 
unpublished information, and we consulted with recognized experts and 
other Federal, State, and Tribal agencies.
    In considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look 
beyond the mere exposure of the species to the factor to determine 
whether the exposure causes actual impacts to the species. If there is 
exposure to a factor, but no response, or only a positive response, 
that factor is not a threat. If there is exposure and the species 
responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and we then attempt to 
determine how significant the threat is. If the threat is significant, 
it may drive, or contribute 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. This determination does not 
necessarily require empirical proof of a threat. The combination of 
exposure and some corroborating evidence of how the species is likely 
impacted could suffice. The mere identification of factors that could 
impact a species negatively is not sufficient to compel a finding that 
listing is appropriate; we require evidence that these factors are 
operative threats that act on the species to the point that the species 
meets the definition of an endangered species or threatened species 
under the Act.
    We found that Oregon chub populations are well-distributed among 
several subbasins and that many large, stable, or increasing 
populations have existed with no evidence of decline over the last 7 or 
more years. During our analysis, we did not identify any factors that 
are likely to reach a magnitude that threatens the continued existence 
of the species; significant impacts at the time of listing that could 
have resulted in the extirpation of all or parts of populations have 
been eliminated or reduced since listing, and we do not expect any of 
these conditions to substantially change post-delisting and into the 
future. We conclude that the previously recognized impacts to the 
Oregon chub from the present or threatened destruction, modification, 
or curtailment of its habitat or range (specifically, operation of 
USACE's Willamette Project dams, sedimentation from timber harvest and 
floods, water quality issues, and succession) (Factor A); predation by 
nonnative species (Factor C); and interspecific competition with 
nonnatives, isolation from genetic exchange, and climate change (Factor 
E), do not rise to a level of significance, such that the species is in 
danger of extinction now or in the foreseeable future. Thus, our 
analysis indicates that the Oregon chub is not likely to become an 
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range and does not, therefore, meet the 
definition of a threatened or endangered species.

Significant Portion of the Range

    Having examined the status of Oregon chub throughout all its range, 
we next examine whether the species is in danger of extinction in a 
significant portion of its range. The range of a species can 
theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite number of ways. 
However, there is no purpose in analyzing portions of the range that 
have no reasonable potential to be significant or in analyzing portions 
of the range in which there is no reasonable potential for the species 
to be endangered or threatened. To identify only those portions that 
warrant further consideration, we determine whether substantial 
information indicates that: (1) The portions may be ``significant'' and 
(2) the species may be in danger of extinction there or likely to 
become so within the foreseeable future. Depending on the biology of 
the species, its range, and the threats it faces, it might be more 
efficient for us to address the significance question first or the 
status question first. Thus, if we determine that a portion of the 
range is not ``significant,'' we do not need to determine whether the 
species is endangered or threatened there; if we determine that the 
species is not endangered or threatened in a portion of its range, we 
do not need to determine if that portion is ``significant.'' In 
practice, a key part of the determination that a species is in danger 
of extinction in a significant portion of its range is whether the 
threats are geographically concentrated in some way. If the threats to 
the species are essentially uniform throughout its range, no portion is 
likely to warrant further consideration. Moreover, if any concentration 
of threats to the species occurs only in portions of the species' range 
that clearly would not meet the biologically based definition of 
``significant,'' such portions will not warrant further consideration.

[[Page 7151]]

    We considered whether any portions of the Oregon chub range might 
be both significant and in danger of extinction or likely to become so 
in the foreseeable future. One way to identify portions would be to 
identify natural divisions within the range that might be of biological 
or conservation importance. Based on our review of the best available 
information concerning the distribution of the species and the 
potential threats, we have determined that the Oregon chub does not 
warrant further consideration to determine if there is a significant 
portion of the range that is threatened or endangered. The geographic 
range of the Oregon chub can readily be divided into four subbasins 
(Santiam, Mainstem Willamette, Middle Fork Willamette, and Coast Fork 
Willamette Rivers). Although some of the factors we evaluated in the 
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section above occur in 
specific habitat types (i.e., hydrologically connected sites versus 
isolated sites) within these subbasins, the factors affecting the 
Oregon chub generally occur at similarly low levels throughout its 
range. Because the low level of potential threats to the species is 
essentially uniform throughout its range, the species is not endangered 
or threatened in a portion of its range and no portion warrants further 
consideration to determine if it is significant.
    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial data 
available and determined that the Oregon chub is no longer threatened 
with becoming endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range within the foreseeable future. We conclude the Oregon chub no 
longer requires the protection of the Act, and, therefore, we are 
proposing to remove it from the Federal List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, 
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain 
practices. Recognition through listing encourages and results in 
conservation actions by Federal, State, and private agencies, groups, 
and individuals. The Act provides for possible land acquisition and 
cooperation with the States and requires that recovery actions be 
carried out for all listed species. This proposed rule, if made final, 
would remove these Federal conservation measures for Oregon chub.

Effects of the Rule

    This proposal, if made final, would revise 50 CFR 17.11(h) to 
remove the Oregon chub from the Federal List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife. The prohibitions and conservation measures 
provided by the Act, particularly through sections 7 and 9, would no 
longer apply to this species. Federal agencies would no longer be 
required to consult with the Service under section 7 of the Act in the 
event that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect the 
Oregon chub. This proposed rule, if made final, would also revise 50 
CFR 17.95(e) to remove the currently designated critical habitat for 
the Oregon chub throughout its range.

Post-Delisting Monitoring

    Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us, in cooperation with the 
States, to implement a monitoring program for not less than 5 years for 
all species that have been recovered and delisted (50 CFR 17.11, 
17.12). The purpose of this post-delisting monitoring (PDM) is to 
verify that a species remains secure from risk of extinction after it 
has been removed from the protections of the Act, by developing a 
program that detects the failure of any delisted species to sustain 
itself. 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.
    A draft PDM plan has been developed for the Oregon chub, building 
upon and continuing the research that was conducted during the listing 
period. The draft PDM plan will be peer reviewed by experts in the 
scientific community and available for public comment upon the 
publication of this proposed rule. Public and peer review comments 
submitted in response to the draft PDM plan will be addressed within 
the body of the plan and summarized in an appendix to the plan. The 
draft PDM plan was developed by the Service and ODFW. In addition, the 
USACE, USFS, Oregon Parks and Recreation Division, McKenzie River 
Trust, and Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex have 
agreed to cooperate with us in the implementation of the PDM. The draft 
PDM plan consists of: (1) A summary of the species' status at the time 
of proposed delisting; (2) an outline of the roles of PDM cooperators; 
(3) a description of monitoring methods; (4) an outline of the 
frequency and duration of monitoring; (5) an outline of data 
compilation and reporting procedures; and (6) a definition of 
thresholds or triggers for potential monitoring outcomes and 
conclusions of the PDM.
    The draft PDM plan proposes to monitor Oregon chub populations 
following the same sampling protocol used by ODFW prior to delisting. 
Monitoring will consist of three components: Oregon chub distribution 
and abundance, potential adverse changes to Oregon chub habitat due to 
environmental or anthropogenic factors, and the distribution of 
nonnative fishes in Oregon chub habitats. The PDM period consists of 
three 3-year cycles (9 years total), which will begin after the final 
delisting rule is published. The Willamette Project biological opinion 
continues until 2023, and flow and temperature augmentation will be 
implemented during this period. Monitoring through this time period 
will allow us to address any possible negative effects to the Oregon 
chub associated with changes to flow and temperatures. We will collect 
data on three generations of Oregon chub in each of the three 
subbasins, which will allow time to observe fluctuations in population 
abundance that may be attributed to residual stressors. Sites included 
in the floodplain study will be sampled annually over the next 9 years 
in order to continue data collection that will be used to recommend 
flow and temperature regimes that are beneficial to native fishes. 
However, sites outside the floodplain study will be sampled only once 
during each 3-year cycle. This sampling schedule will result in annual 
sampling costs being reduced from current levels.
    The draft PDM plan identifies measurable management thresholds and 
responses for detecting and reacting to significant changes in Oregon 
chub protected habitat, distribution, and persistence. If declines are 
detected equaling or exceeding these thresholds, the Service in 
combination with other PDM participants will investigate causes of 
these declines, including considerations of habitat changes, 
substantial human persecution, stochastic events, or any other 
significant evidence. The result of the investigation will be to 
determine if the Oregon chub warrants expanded monitoring, additional 
research, additional habitat protection, or relisting as a threatened 
or endangered species under the Act. If relisting the Oregon chub is 
warranted, emergency procedures to relist the species may be followed, 
if necessary, in accordance with section 4(b)(7) of the Act.
    The final PDM plan and any future revisions will be posted on our

[[Page 7152]]

Endangered Species Program's national Web page (http://endangered.fws.gov) and on the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office's Web 
page (http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/).

Required Determinations

Clarity of the Rule

    We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the 
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain 
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
    (a) Be logically organized;
    (b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
    (c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
    (d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
    (e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us 
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us 
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For 
example, you should tell us the names of the sections or paragraphs 
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, 
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

    This rule does not contain any new collections of information that 
require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule will not impose recordkeeping or 
reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, 
businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and 
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information 
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental 
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be 
prepared in connection with regulations pursuant to section 4(a) of the 
Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination 
in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this final rule is 
available at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2014-
0002, or upon request from the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see 
ADDRESSES).

Authors

    The primary authors of this proposed rule are staff members of the 
Service's Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES and FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; unless otherwise noted.

0
2. Amend Sec.  17.11(h) by removing the entry for ``Chub, Oregon'' 
under ``Fishes'' from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
0
3. Amend Sec.  17.95(e) by removing the entry for ``Oregon Chub 
(Oregonichthys crameri)''.

    Dated: January 27, 2014.
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-02363 Filed 2-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P