Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Oregon Chub From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, 9125-9150 [2015-02951]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 33 (Thursday, February 19, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9125-9150]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02951]



[[Page 9125]]

Vol. 80

Thursday,

No. 33

February 19, 2015

Part IV





Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Oregon Chub 
From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 9126]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2014-0002; FXES11130900000C6-156-FF09E42000]
RIN 1018-BA28


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the 
Oregon Chub From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are removing 
the Oregon chub (Oregonichthys crameri) from the Federal List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. This determination 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 rule also removes the currently 
designated critical habitat for the Oregon chub throughout its range.

DATES: This rule is effective on March 23, 2015.

ADDRESSES: This final rule and the post-delisting monitoring plan are 
available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket 
Number FWS-R1-ES-2014-0002. Comments and materials received, as well as 
supporting documentation used in the preparation of this rule, will be 
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business 
hours, at the Service's Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, 2600 SE 98th 
Avenue, Portland, OR 97266.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Henson, State Supervisor, Oregon 
Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES); telephone 503-231-6179; or 
facsimile (fax) 503-231-6195. Persons who use a telecommunications 
device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay 
Services (FIRS) at 800-877-8339 for assistance.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

    This document contains: (1) A final rule to remove the Oregon chub 
from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, and (2) a 
notice of availability of a final post-delisting monitoring plan.
    Species addressed--The Oregon chub (Oregonichthys crameri) is 
endemic to the Willamette River drainage of western Oregon. Extensive 
human activities in the Willamette River Basin (e.g., dams, levees, and 
other human development within the floodplain) have substantially 
reduced the amount and suitability of habitat for this species. 
Improved floodplain management and floodplain restoration by multiple 
conservation partners has reduced and mitigated adverse human-related 
impacts and resulted in significant improvements to habitat quality and 
quantity. As a result, threats to the Oregon chub have been largely 
ameliorated.
    The status of the species has improved dramatically due to the 
discovery of many new populations and successful reintroductions within 
the species' historical range. At the time of listing in 1993 (58 FR 
53800, October 18, 1993), only nine known populations of Oregon chub 
existed, and few estimates existed of the number of individuals within 
each population. The locations of these populations represented a small 
fraction (estimated as 2 percent based on stream miles) of the species' 
formerly extensive distribution within the Willamette River drainage. 
In 2013, 77 populations were known to exist throughout the Willamette 
River drainage. The risk of extinction is substantially reduced as 
threats have been ameliorated and new populations have been discovered 
or established.
    Purpose of the Regulatory Action--Under the Endangered Species Act 
of 1973, we may be petitioned to list, delist, or reclassify a species. 
In 2010, we reclassified the Oregon chub from endangered to threatened 
(75 FR 21179, April 23, 2010), based on defined criteria in the species 
recovery plan. In 2014, we proposed to remove the Oregon chub from the 
Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (79 FR 7136, 
February 6, 2014), based on delisting criteria in the recovery plan and 
a five factor threats analysis. Threats to this species have been 
largely ameliorated, with the exception of the effects of climate 
change, and we do not consider such effects to be a substantial threat 
to the species at this time. Therefore, we have determined that the 
Oregon chub no longer meets the definition of an endangered or 
threatened species under the Act. This final rule removes the Oregon 
chub from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. This 
rule also removes the currently designated critical habitat for the 
Oregon chub throughout its range.
    Basis for the Regulatory Action--Under the Act, a species may be 
determined to be an endangered species or threatened species 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. We must consider the same factors in 
delisting a species. We may delist a species if the best scientific and 
commercial data indicate the species is neither endangered nor 
threatened for one or more of the following reasons: (1) The species is 
extinct; (2) the species has recovered and is no longer threatened or 
endangered; or (3) the original scientific data used at the time the 
species was classified were in error.
    Threats to the Oregon chub at the time of listing in 1993, included 
loss of habitat, water quality, and competition with and predation by 
nonnative fishes. We reviewed all available scientific and commercial 
information pertaining to the five threat factors in our status review 
of the Oregon chub, and the results are summarized below.
     We consider the Oregon chub to be ``recovered'' because 
all substantial threats to this fish have been ameliorated and the 
species is now abundant and well-distributed throughout much of its 
presumed historical range.
     All remaining potential threats to the species and its 
habitat, with the exception of effects related to climate change, have 
been ameliorated, and many populations exist on public lands managed 
for fish and wildlife conservation.
     We do not consider effects related to climate change to be 
a substantial threat to the species at this time, and we do not expect 
climate change effects to rise to the magnitude or severity such that 
the species will be likely to become an endangered species within the 
foreseeable future. While we recognize that climate change effects such 
as rising air temperatures, reduced snowpack, and increased drought may 
have potential effects to the Oregon chub and its habitat, the best 
available information does not indicate that such

[[Page 9127]]

effects will significantly impact the Oregon chub or its habitat. We 
expect that the Oregon chub's susceptibility to climate change effects 
is low given the wide range of temperature tolerances of Oregon chub, 
the range and diversity of habitats occupied by the species, and 
because effects of climate change will be ameliorated by multiple 
storage dams in the Willamette River Basin.
     We find that delisting the Oregon chub is warranted and 
thus we are removing this taxon from the Federal List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife.
     We prepared a final post-delisting monitoring plan to 
monitor the Oregon chub after delisting to verify that the species 
remains secure.

Previous Federal Actions

    Please refer to the proposed rule to remove the Oregon chub from 
the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (79 FR 7136, 
February 6, 2014) for a detailed description of previous Federal 
actions concerning this species. This document is our final rule to 
remove the Oregon chub from the Federal List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife.

Background

    This is a final rule to remove the Oregon chub from the Federal 
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. It is our intent to discuss 
in this final rule only those topics directly relevant to the removal 
of the Oregon chub from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife.

Species Information

    The following section contains information updated from that 
presented in the proposed rule to remove Oregon chub from the Federal 
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, which published in the 
Federal Register on February 6, 2014 (79 FR 7136). A thorough 
discussion of the species' description, population density, and 
abundance is also found in the proposed rule.
    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 (in)), and adults grow up to 
90 mm (3.5 in) 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 live 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 used by the Oregon chub is less than 1.8 meters (m) (6 
feet (ft)), and summer water temperatures typically exceed 16 degrees 
Celsius (61 degrees Fahrenheit). 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, Oregon chub are 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). It feeds throughout the day and stops 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 consisted 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 existed as 
far downstream as Oregon City and as far upstream as the town of 
Oakridge. Historically a dynamic, alluvial river, the Willamette and 
its tributaries created broad floodplains and braided reaches with many 
side channels, sloughs, and other similar slack-water habitats that 
support the Oregon chub. The Willamette is typical of river systems on 
the west side of the Cascade Mountains, with the largest river flows/
floods influenced by heavy rain, or rain-on-snow events during the late 
winter and spring. Snowmelt in the spring typically produces an 
elongated flow peak in the spring, with decreasing flows throughout 
summer.
    Extensive human activities in the Willamette River Basin have 
substantially reduced the floodplain habitats and altered water 
temperatures, as well as the timing, duration, and magnitude of floods 
in the basin. In the 1950s and 1960s, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
(USACE) constructed 13 large dams on many of the tributaries of the 
Willamette River, with the primary purpose of flood risk reduction. 
Though the Willamette River mainstem and some tributaries remain 
undammed, miles of levees have also been constructed to further 
increase agricultural and urban use of these former floodplain areas.
    At the time of listing in 1993 (58 FR 53800, October 18, 1993), 
only nine known populations of Oregon chub existed, and few estimates 
existed of the number of individuals within each population. The 
locations of these populations 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 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 (75 
FR 21179, April 23, 2010), a substantial number of new Oregon chub 
populations were discovered (34 populations) and established through 
introductions (8 populations). In 2013, the Oregon Department of Fish 
and Wildlife (ODFW) confirmed the existence of Oregon chub at 77 
locations in the Molalla River, 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), including 56 naturally 
occurring and 21 introduced populations. In 2013, the estimated 
abundance of 41 Oregon chub populations was greater than 500 fish each, 
and 23 of these populations exhibited a stable or increasing trend over 
the last 7 years (Bangs et al. 2013, p. 1). The current status of 
Oregon chub populations meets the goals of the species recovery plan 
for delisting. The distribution of these sites is shown in Table 1.

[[Page 9128]]



            Table 1--Distribution of Oregon Chub Populations Meeting Recovery Criteria for Delisting
                                          [Bangs et al. 2013, pp. 5-8]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Number of large
                                   Number of         Number of large      populations with     Total estimated
      Recovery subbasin           populations       populations (>=500   stable/increasing       abundance in
                                                       adult fish)        abundance trend          subbasin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Santiam.....................                   19                   13                    7               32,714
Mainstem Willamette \1\.....                   26                   10                    6               71,840
Middle Fork Willamette......                   28                   17                   10               54,285
Coast Fork Willamette \2\...                    4                    1                    0                  824
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...................                   77                   41                   23              159,663
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes McKenzie River subbasin.
\2\ The Coast Fork Willamette was identified as a subbasin containing Oregon chub in the recovery plan, but was
  not identified as a Recovery Area.

    Although certain populations of the Oregon chub remain relatively 
stable from year to year, we observed substantial fluctuations in 
abundance within populations. For instance, the largest known 
population at Ankeny National Wildlife Refuge was 21,790 Oregon chub 
individuals in 2010, and increased to 96,810 in 2011. The population 
then declined from 82,800 to 47,920 between 2012 and 2013. We observed 
similar substantial fluctuations in 2013, at the Dunn Wetland and at 
the Hills Creek Pond populations. While substantial, these fluctuations 
commonly occur, and appear natural and cyclical. For example, we 
estimated the population abundance at the Dexter Reservoir Alcove 
``PIT1'' site at 140 in 1995. Although annual estimated abundance 
fluctuated, this population reached 1,440 estimated individuals in 
2000. The population then declined to 70 individuals in 2004, and then 
increased again to reach 1,370 estimated individuals in 2009 (Scheerer 
et al. 2005, p. 2).
    A major component of recovery efforts for the Oregon chub was 
introducing the species into hydrologically isolated habitats that are 
free from nonnative fish species. Twenty-one new populations were 
established since 1988 (Table 2). In 2013, 14 introduced populations 
existed with more than 500 Oregon chub each; 6 of these populations 
exhibited a stable or increasing 7-year abundance trend (Bangs et al. 
2013, p. 14).

                                   Table 2--Introduced Oregon Chub Populations
                                        [Bangs et al. 2013, pp. 6-8, 15]
     [MS--Mainstem Willamette River, S--Santiam River, CF--Coast Fork Willamette River, and MF--Middle Fork
                                                Willamette River]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Estimated
                Site name                        Subbasin          Year of first  Number of fish     abundance
                                                                   introduction     introduced        (2013)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dunn Wetland............................  MS....................            1997             573           6,439
Finley Display Pond.....................  MS....................            1998             500             118
Russell Pond............................  MS....................            2001             500             133
Finley Cheadle Pond.....................  MS....................            2002             530             157
Ankeny Willow Marsh.....................  MS....................            2004             500          47,920
St. Paul Ponds..........................  MS....................            2008             195             442
Finley-Buford Pond......................  MS....................            2011             160           1,009
Murphy Pond.............................  MS....................            2011             214           1,079
Ellison Pond............................  MS....................            2012             110               9
McCrae Reservoir........................  MS....................            2013              29              29
Foster Pullout Pond.....................  S.....................            1999             500           3,412
South Stayton Pond......................  S.....................            2006             439           1,102
North Stayton Pond......................  S.....................            2010             620           3,724
Budeau South Pond.......................  S.....................            2010             312           2,810
Budeau North Pond.......................  S.....................            2010             310           8,350
Herman Pond.............................  CF....................            2002             400             184
Sprick Pond.............................  CF....................            2008              65             608
Wicopee Pond............................  MF....................            1992             178           4,375
Fall Creek Spillway Ponds...............  MF....................            1996             500           9,107
Haws Enhancement Pond...................  MF....................            2009             133             788
Hills Creek Pond........................  MF....................            2010           1,127          14,613
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Genetic Diversity--The Service's Abernathy Fish Technology Center 
conducted a genetic analysis on the Oregon chub in 2010 (DeHaan et al. 
2010, 2012, entire). 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, corresponding to the four subbasins of the 
Willamette River. Levels of genetic diversity were high across the 
range of the species and equal to, or greater than, other threatened or 
endangered species of minnows (i.e., cyprinids). In addition, the 
levels of genetic diversity for Oregon chub were similar to the creek 
chub Semotilus atromaculatus, a widespread and abundant species of 
minnow (DeHaan 2012, pp. 548-549). Despite fluctuations in population 
abundance of Oregon chub, genetic diversity remained stable

[[Page 9129]]

over a 7- to 8-year interval (three to four Oregon chub generations). 
Two populations of the 24 evaluated had 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 reductions in the population size from 8,660 to 360 
fish between 1997 and 2000 (Bangs et al. 2012, p. 109). Currently, both 
populations are abundant and exhibit an increasing trend in population 
growth over the last 7 years (Bangs et al. 2013, pp. 7-8).
    The genetic assessment (DeHaan et al. 2010, p. 18; DeHaan et al. 
2012, p. 545) shows that the current Oregon chub translocation 
guidelines (ODFW 2006, entire) (which require the donor population from 
within same subbasin, and a minimum of 500 Oregon chub introduced) are 
effective in establishing genetically viable populations. 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 because this population was 
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--Section 4(f) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) 
directs us to develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation 
and survival of endangered and threatened species unless we determine 
that such a plan will not promote the conservation of the species. 
Under section 4(f)(1)(B)(ii), recovery plans must, to the maximum 
extent practicable, include: ``Objective, measurable criteria which, 
when met, would result in a determination, in accordance with the 
provisions of [section 4 of the Act], that the species be removed from 
the list.'' However, revisions to the list (adding, removing, or 
reclassifying a species) must reflect determinations made in accordance 
with sections 4(a)(1) and 4(b) of the Act. Section 4(a)(1) requires 
that the Secretary determine whether a species is endangered or 
threatened (or not) because of one or more of five threat factors. 
Section 4(b) of the Act requires that the determination be made 
``solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data 
available.'' Therefore, recovery criteria should help indicate when we 
would anticipate that an analysis of the five threat factors under 
section 4(a)(1) would result in a determination that the species is no 
longer an endangered species or threatened species because of any of 
the five statutory factors (see Summary of Factors Affecting the 
Species).
    While recovery plans provide important guidance to the Service, 
States, and other partners on methods of minimizing threats to listed 
species and measurable objectives against which to measure progress 
towards recovery, they are not regulatory documents and cannot 
substitute for the determinations and promulgation of regulations 
required under section 4(a)(1) of the Act. A decision to revise the 
status of or remove a species from the Federal List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife (50 CFR 17.11) is ultimately based on an analysis 
of the best scientific and commercial data then available to determine 
whether a species is no longer an endangered species or a threatened 
species, regardless of whether that information differs from the 
recovery plan.
    Recovery plans may be revised to address continuing or new threats 
to the species, as new, substantive information becomes available. The 
recovery plan identifies site-specific management actions that will 
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 intended to establish goals for long-term 
conservation of listed species and define criteria that are designed to 
indicate when the substantial threats facing a species have been 
removed or reduced to such an extent that the species may no longer 
need the protections of the Act.
    There are many paths to accomplishing recovery of a species, and 
recovery may be achieved without all criteria being fully met. For 
example, one or more criteria may be exceeded while other criteria may 
not yet be 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, is 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. These actions include the establishment of additional populations 
via successful introductions within the species' historical range and 
the discovery of many new populations as a result of the ODFW's surveys 
of the basin (Scheerer 2007, p. 97). Over 20

[[Page 9130]]

years 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 77 Oregon chub populations, of which 41 have more 
than 500 adults (Bangs et al. 2013, pp. 5-11). The risk of extinction 
is substantially reduced as threats have been ameliorated and new 
populations have been discovered or established. The following criteria 
for delisting the Oregon chub are met or exceeded as described in the 
recovery plan:
    Delisting Criterion 1: 20 populations of at least 500 individuals 
are established and maintained. This criterion was exceeded; in 2013, 
we identified 41 populations with more than 500 adult Oregon chub (see 
Table 1, above).
    Delisting Criterion 2: All of these populations (20) must exhibit a 
stable or increasing trend for 7 years. This criterion was met. 
Currently, 23 populations of at least 500 individuals exhibit a stable 
or increasing trend for 7 years (see Table 1, above).
    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 was 
exceeded in all three subbasins. Six populations in the Mainstem 
Willamette River subbasin, 10 populations in the Middle Fork Willamette 
River subbasin, and 7 populations in the Santiam River subbasin meet 
the first 3 delisting criteria (see Table 1, above).
    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 
endangered or threatened, 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. Of the 41 sites with populations of 
more than 500 Oregon chub, 28 of the sites are in public or Tribal 
ownership, with either active conservation management programs, or 
practices where land managers consider the needs of the Oregon chub 
when implementing site management activities. Additionally, eight of 
the sites with abundant populations of the Oregon chub are on land that 
is privately owned, either where landowners have signed conservation 
agreements or are enrolled in our Safe Harbor Program. Three additional 
sites are on land that is in a permanent easement or ownership by the 
McKenzie River Trust, a land trust dedicated to conservation of wetland 
and riparian habitat.
    Based on our review of the Oregon chub recovery plan, we conclude 
that the status of the species has improved due to implementation of 
recovery activities and the objectives of the recovery plan have been 
met. Our analysis of whether the species has achieved recovery and thus 
no longer requires the protections of the Act because it is no longer 
an endangered or threatened species is based on the five statutory 
threat factors identified in section 4 of the Act, and discussed below 
in the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the proposed rule published February 6, 2014 (79 FR 7136), we 
requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the 
proposal by April 7, 2014. We also contacted appropriate Federal and 
State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other 
interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. The 
Service hosted a media event with local and national news coverage 
announcing the proposed rule on February 4, 2014. We did not receive 
any requests for a public hearing.
    During the comment period for the proposed rule, we received five 
comment letters (three from peer reviewers, one from the ODFW, and one 
from the public) directly addressing the proposed removal of the Oregon 
chub from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. All 
substantive information provided during the comment period is either 
incorporated directly into this final determination or is addressed 
below. The following section summarizes issues and information we 
consider to be substantive from peer review and public comments, and 
provides our responses.

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 solicited expert 
opinion on the proposed rule and the draft post-delisting monitoring 
plan from three knowledgeable independent individuals with scientific 
expertise that included familiarity with Oregon chub and its habitat, 
biological needs, recovery efforts, and threats. We received responses 
from all three peer reviewers. Issues and information provided by the 
peer reviewers are summarized in the Peer Reviewer Comments section, 
and where they overlap with similar issues identified by the public, 
they are included in the Public Comments section.

Peer Reviewer Comments

    Comment (1): Two peer reviewers suggested that the lower bounds of 
the confidence intervals should be used to determine the number of 
populations meeting Delisting Criterion #1.
    Our response: The species' recovery plan does not define the method 
to determine population size for Delisting Criterion #1. The ODFW uses 
a single-sample mark-recapture model, also called an adjusted Petersen 
estimate, to estimate population abundance (Bangs et al. 2013, p. 5). 
This method is supported in the literature (Seber 1973, pp. 59-60, 
Ricker 1975, pp. 75-79), and demonstrates reliable estimates for 
sampling conditions similar to what ODFW experiences monitoring Oregon 
chub. The ODFW also demonstrates the reliability in its population 
abundance estimates by providing a 95 percent confidence interval 
(Bangs et al. 2013, pp. 9-12). The calculation of the confidence 
interval is highly influenced by the sample size; a narrower interval 
requires sampling more individuals (Seber 1973, p. 61). Thus, in small 
populations, greater sampling effort would be required to demonstrate 
if a population met Delisting Criterion #1 if the lower bound was used, 
thus exposing more individuals to the risk of trapping or handling 
mortality. We do not agree with the reviewer's suggestion to use the 
lower bound of the 95 percent confidence interval, as this method 
exposes individuals in small populations to greater risk of mortality 
than the method used by the ODFW.
    Comment (2): One peer reviewer asked why the Coast Fork Willamette 
Oregon chub populations were not mentioned under Delisting Criterion 
#3.
    Our response: Under the recovery plan for Oregon chub, the Coast 
Fork Willamette was not included in the Mainstem, Santiam, or Middle 
Fork Willamette recovery areas. The recovery plan states: ``Although a 
single small population of Oregon chub currently occurs in a fourth 
subbasin, the Coast Fork, recovery efforts will not focus on this 
subbasin because surveys have not

[[Page 9131]]

revealed any other suitable habitats, and nonnative fish are very 
common.'' Although we are encouraged that two additional, small 
populations of Oregon chub were discovered and two introduced 
populations were established in the Coast Fork subbasin, recovery 
criteria were met without the inclusion of the populations in this 
subbasin.
    Comment (3): One peer reviewer asked that the Service provide a 
more current summary of the 2009-2010 Willamette Floodplain Report 
(Bangs et al. 2011a, entire). This peer reviewer also suggested that 
the delisting rule incorporate 2013 data.
    Our response: The Willamette Floodplain Report, with analysis of 
data from 2009-2012, is currently in preparation by the ODFW, and is 
expected to be available late spring 2015 at the earliest. As such, we 
are using the best available information at this time. We agree with 
the second part of this comment, and updated the rule to include the 
2013 data.

Public Comments

    Comment (4): One commenter stated that the Service did not 
adequately consider effective population size in the decision to delist 
the Oregon chub. The commenter stated that the general rule for short-
term (50) and long-term (500) effective population size is not 
appropriate, as an effective population size of 500 individuals does 
not sufficiently reduce extinction risk. The commenter stated that 
determining a minimum viable population based on effective population 
size should include additional factors, such as environmental and 
demographic stochasticity, spatial dispersion, overlapping generations, 
and synergistic interactions among the risk factors. As an example, the 
commenter mentioned that the largest population of Oregon chub in the 
Middle Fork Willamette subbasin is in Hills Creek Pond; the population 
abundance was estimated at 13,460 individuals in 2012. The commenter 
noted that this was the total population size and not the effective 
population size, and was too small to assure viability.
    Our response: The minimum viable population is the smallest 
estimated population size with a high probability of long-term 
persistence. Minimum viable population factors in risks associated with 
demographic and environmental stochastic events, and the impacts of 
inbreeding and limited genetic diversity. The effective population size 
is the number of breeding individuals in the population that contribute 
genetic material to the next generation, and can be used to determine 
the impacts of inbreeding and limited genetic diversity during the 
analysis of the minimum viable population. The recovery criteria in the 
recovery plan (Service 1998) do not require measuring effective 
population sizes for Oregon chub. At the time the recovery plan was 
written, the Service used the best available science to set the 
recovery criterion abundance threshold at 500 adult fish per 
population. This threshold is based on the total adult population size, 
not effective population size, and takes into account effects of 
limited genetic diversity and inbreeding associated with small 
population size and the risk associated with stochastic events.
    Jamieson and Allendorf (2012, p. 583) suggested that, at a minimum, 
an effective population size of 500 individuals is needed for 
conservation of endangered species, including the potential impacts of 
stochastic events on conservation genetics. Jamieson and Allendorf 
(2012, p. 580) suggested an effective population size of 500 
individuals is the total for all populations of a species, and not the 
size of individual populations. The total Oregon chub population size 
in 2013 was approximately 160,000 adult fish (Bangs et al. 2013, pp. 6-
9).
    DeHaan (2012, p. 543) determined effective population size for 
three isolated Oregon chub populations as part of a genetic analysis of 
the species. While these isolated populations represent a worst-case 
scenario for negative genetic effects, the study suggested: (1) There 
was no immediate threat from inbreeding or genetic drift, and (2) many 
Oregon chub populations have some degree of connectivity to other 
populations. This study also determined that genetic diversity remains 
high and stable over time, despite fluctuations in individual 
population size. Further, the ODFW (Bangs et al. 2013, p. 17) 
documented movement of individual Oregon chub between populations, 
which provides a mechanism for genetic exchange between populations 
that will maintain genetic variation (DeHaan 2012, p. 543). Despite the 
recent genetic analysis (DeHaan 2012, p. 543), the best available 
information is not sufficient to determine a minimum viable population 
size for Oregon chub.
    In our decision to delist the Oregon chub, we are required to 
analyze the current or foreseeable threats to the species to determine 
whether a species meets the definition of endangered or of threatened, 
based on the best available scientific information. Our analysis 
includes recent genetic data that demonstrate Oregon chub are not 
threatened by low genetic diversity. We conclude that the recovery 
criterion abundance threshold of 500 adult fish per population is 
adequate, and analyzing the effective population size or determining 
the minimum viable population is not required in order to assess the 
status of the species.
    Comment (5): One commenter stated that the Service was not 
conservative in the analysis of population size and must err on the 
side of caution. The reviewer commented that stochastic events and 
small population sizes decreases the population viability and increases 
the extinction risk of Oregon chub. The commenter further stated that 
the extreme annual variability within individual Oregon chub population 
sizes suggests considerable risk of extinction, even in locally 
abundant populations. The commenter mentioned that in addition, 
population growth is impacted by demographic stochasticity.
    Our response: We disagree. The Act does not require that we ``err 
on the side of caution'' in determining the status of a species; it 
requires that we determine, based on the best available scientific 
information, whether a species meets the definition of endangered or of 
threatened. The Willamette River floodplain where Oregon chub evolved 
has always been highly dynamic. Oregon chub are extremely well adapted 
to surviving stochastic events. For instance, Oregon chub habitats have 
been known to freeze each winter, experience high magnitude flood flows 
in the spring, and reach in excess of 25 degrees Celsius (77 degrees 
Fahrenheit) in the summer, yet Oregon chub survive. Oregon chub are now 
well-distributed throughout their historical range in a variety of 
habitats, which reduces the risk of effects of severe stochastic events 
to the species throughout its range. Each habitat is impacted by 
stochastic effects in different ways. For example, while populations in 
shallow water habitats with high solar exposure may be impacted by 
severe hot and dry weather that raises temperatures to unsuitable 
levels for chub, populations in habitats that are deep and well-shaded 
may benefit by water warmed to the preferred temperature range for the 
species. Oregon chub have been documented in new, suitable habitat 
created by floodplain processes in the McKenzie River subbasin, and 
voluntary movement of Oregon chub was documented between populations in 
the Middle Fork Willamette River (Bangs et al. 2012, p. 19) and 
McKenzie River subbasins (Bangs et al. 2013, p. 17). These findings 
demonstrate the ability

[[Page 9132]]

of Oregon chub to colonize new habitats, resulting in exchange of 
genetic material between established populations, thus reducing the 
potential effects of stochastic events on small populations.
    Further, for each ``stable'' population (as defined in the recovery 
plan), we calculate the coefficient of variation for the past 7 years. 
If the coefficient of variation is greater than one (in other words, if 
the variation is greater than the mean abundance), we consider the 
population ``unstable'' and do not consider that population to meet the 
recovery criteria. The 20 populations in 2012, and 23 populations in 
2013, that met delisting criteria had either a ``stable'' or 
``increasing'' abundance trend. This leads us to conclude that the 
variability in population abundance is not a factor that will impact 
future survival of these populations, provided the abundance criteria 
(500 adult fish) is met, because genetic diversity remains high and 
stable over time, despite fluctuations in individual population size 
(DeHaan 2012, p. 543). Overall, trend analysis conducted since 1996 
demonstrates that the Oregon chub populations are stable and that the 
concerns raised by the commenter are not affecting Oregon chub recovery 
and are not expected into the foreseeable future.
    Comment (6): One commenter and one peer reviewer suggested 
including a better description of population trends for Oregon chub 
populations that are coexisting with nonnative predators. One peer 
reviewer also suggested that the Service discuss specific predators 
that may impact Oregon chub, instead of combining all nonnatives, 
specifically western mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) and largemouth 
bass (Micropterus salmoides). One peer reviewer suggested that the 
Service include western mosquitofish as a potential predator on larval 
Oregon chub, and that we include this species in the predation 
discussion. One commenter recommended that efforts to limit largemouth 
bass colonization should be discussed in the final rule to delist 
Oregon chub. The peer reviewer asked that the Service explore 
alternative management of mosquitoes by using native minnows instead of 
nonnative western mosquitofish. One commenter stated that the 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to prevent spread of 
western mosquitofish and largemouth bass into connected watersheds was 
not adequately analyzed, and should be discussed. Additionally, one 
peer reviewer recommended that the post-delisting monitoring (PDM) plan 
focus on specific nonnative species of concern (mosquitofish and 
largemouth bass).
    Our response: The best available data show no relationship between 
the presence of nonnative fish and Oregon chub population abundance 
trends (Bangs et al. 2013, p. 17). Thirteen of the 23 populations that 
met delisting criteria with either a stable or increasing abundance 
trend in 2013 occur with nonnative fish; 1 of the 2 populations that 
had a declining abundance trend occurs with nonnative fish (Bangs et 
al. 2013, p. 17). Nonnative fish that are thought to have the potential 
to impact Oregon chub populations through predation and competition 
include largemouth bass, smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu), 
bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), pumpkinseed sunfish (Lepomis gibbosus), 
warmouth (Lepomis gulosus), green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus), yellow 
perch (Perca flavescens), walleye (Sander vitreus), black crappie 
(Pomoxis nigromaculatus), white crappie (Pomoxis annularis), common 
carp (Cyprinus carpio), brown bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus), yellow 
bullhead (Ameiurus natalis), and western mosquitofish (Markle et al. 
1991, p. 91). We agree that western mosquitofish are potential 
predators on larval Oregon chub, and we have included an analysis of 
their impact in this final rule. While we acknowledge that some of 
these fish species may represent a larger threat to individual Oregon 
chub populations than others, we maintain that monitoring should 
include all nonnative species. We determine in the five factor analysis 
(see Factors A, C, and E) that the threats of nonnative fish to the 
Oregon chub have been ameliorated; thus, there is no existing or 
potential future significant threat that is inadequately addressed 
through existing regulatory mechanisms (see Factor D). Additionally, a 
regulatory mechanism is in place to prevent the translocation of 
nonnative fish. Within the State of Oregon, 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). Abiotic 
factors such as water flow through connected habitats and variability 
in water temperature and depth keep largemouth bass and nonnative 
predators from becoming dominant in these habitats. Through the PDM, 
the ODFW will continue to monitor Oregon chub populations that are 
thriving, despite the presence of nonnative fish, to better understand 
the factors that allow this to occur. While we support efforts to limit 
the proliferation of nonnative fish in the Willamette River Basin, 
creating a management action for nonnative fish or addressing vector 
control guidelines is outside the scope of this rule and the PDM plan.
    Comment (7): Two peer reviewers and one public commenter discussed 
the need to consider the effects of climate change, environmental 
stochasticity, human population growth, and resulting changes in water 
availability on the viability and vulnerability of Oregon chub 
populations and suitable habitats. Primary concerns included effects to 
Oregon chub from: Extreme climatic variation (including drought 
effects, effects to instream flows, and increased reservoir drawdown); 
water temperature increases and reduced cool water refugia; the 
potential reduction in habitat size and quality; habitat fragmentation; 
and likely increases in populations of predatory and competitor 
nonnative fish species.
    Our response: The Service reviews the best scientific and 
commercial information available when conducting a threats analysis. In 
considering what factors might constitute a threat we must look beyond 
the mere exposure of the species to the factor to determine whether the 
exposure causes actual impacts to the species. The mere identification 
of factors that could negatively impact a species is not sufficient to 
compel a finding that listing (or maintaining a currently listed 
species on the Federal Lists of Endangered or Threatened Wildlife or 
Plants) is appropriate. We require evidence that these factors are 
operative threats currently acting on the species to the point that the 
species meets the definition of endangered or of threatened under the 
Act.
    The Service acknowledges that environmental changes could occur 
over the next several decades due to both climate change effects and 
human population growth. However, it is difficult to: (1) Predict with 
any certainty how those changes may influence Oregon chub populations 
and their habitats in the Willamette Valley, and (2) accurately 
describe and assess the net effects when considering the potential 
negative consequences together with the potential positive consequences 
to Oregon chub populations. Additional information and explanation was 
added to this final rule in the section on ``Effects Related to Climate 
Change'' (see Factor A).
    Comment (8): One commenter stated that if Oregon chub are delisted, 
the terms and conditions required under the Service's biological 
opinion issued under section 7 of the Act to the USACE and other 
Federal agencies on the

[[Page 9133]]

continued operation and maintenance of dams in the Willamette River 
Basin will no longer be required, thereby removing key protections for 
the Oregon chub. This commenter also expressed a concern that delisting 
will eliminate consultation and agency review of actions permitted via 
the USACE permit program.
    Our response: Since 2002, the 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, even after 
the Oregon chub is delisted, under existing biological opinions from 
the Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on the USACE's 
Willamette Valley Project (Service 2008b, pp. 40-51; NMFS 2008, pp. 2-
43 to 2-52), because these biological opinions apply to other listed 
fish species (Upper Willamette spring chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus 
tshawytscha), Upper Willamette winter steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), 
and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus)). The USACE also has a 
memorandum of understanding (MOU) with The Nature Conservancy's (TNC) 
Sustainable Rivers Project, an ongoing collaboration to promote 
ecologically sustainable flows below USACE dams in the Willamette River 
Basin (USACE and TNC 2000, 2011; entire). For these reasons, we 
anticipate that the USACE will 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. Given the MOU between the USACE and TNC 
regarding the Sustainable Rivers Project, and the minimum flows 
required under two existing biological opinions (NMFS 2008, pp. 2-43 to 
2-52; Service 2008b, pp. 40-51) for bull trout, Upper Willamette spring 
chinook, Upper Willamette winter steelhead, and their designated 
critical habitats, we anticipate that 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 foreseeable future.
    The USACE permits in-water work including construction and dredging 
in navigable waters under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA; 33 
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). While we acknowledge that consultation under 
section 7 of the Act will no longer be required for Oregon chub, the 
Service will continue to provide comments to the USACE on individual 
section 404 permits in the Willamette Valley through our authorities 
under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.). 
The USACE routinely sends the Service individual permit applications 
for our review, and we provide specific comments and recommendations to 
reduce negative effects to fish and wildlife, including unlisted 
species. For most section 404 projects, any potential negative impacts 
to habitat and species are generally short-term. While in-water work 
has the potential to impact individual Oregon chub populations, this 
impact for the overall population is considered a low risk because the 
species is widely distributed across multiple subbasins with many 
abundant populations. In the past 4 years, we have received 
approximately 13 such requests to review section 404 permits from the 
USACE. Of those 13 projects, we found that 9 were not likely to 
adversely affect Oregon chub and 2 projects only required technical 
assistance; we completed 1 formal consultation for a river restoration 
study that only anticipated short-term effects and long-term benefits. 
The last project was an emergency consultation when the USACE had to 
take action to maintain water levels in Oregon chub habitat on their 
property, as the habitat was affected by atypical, unexpected 
operations necessary for dam safety. The USACE worked with the ODFW to 
introduce Oregon chub into Hills Creek Pond during the drawdown as a 
back-up to the Dexter RV Park Pond ``DEX3'' and the Dexter Reservoir 
Alcove ``PIT1'' populations, in case either population failed during 
the drawdown.
    Comment (9): One commenter stated that there are no regulatory 
mechanisms to protect Oregon chub habitat in the floodplain habitats 
that have been acquired for long-term conservation and restoration.
    Our response: We disagree. One of the factors identified as a 
threat to Oregon chub at the time of listing was habitat loss. This 
threat has been ameliorated by the actions of multiple conservation 
partners over the last 20 years. In 2010, the Bonneville Power 
Administration (BPA) and the State of Oregon signed the Willamette 
River Basin Memorandum of Agreement Regarding Wildlife Habitat 
Protection and Enhancement (BPA and ODFW 2010, entire). The Agreement 
established goals for mitigating the effects of the construction, 
inundation, and operation of the Willamette River Basin Flood Control 
Projects in the Willamette Valley. Under the terms of the Agreement, 
the State of Oregon and the BPA agreed to acquire at least an 
additional 16,880 acres (ac) (6,831 hectares (ha)) of wildlife 
mitigation property to protect 26,537 ac (10,739 ha) (or more) by the 
end of 2025. Throughout the Willamette River Basin, floodplain 
properties have been, and will continue to be, acquired. All habitat 
acquisitions funded by the BPA must include provisions for permanent 
protections and enforcement of those protections. The acquisition of 
floodplain habitat for long-term conservation and restoration through 
these mechanisms provides assurances that Oregon chub habitats will 
continue to be managed for the species into the foreseeable future.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    This section contains updated information and associated analysis 
from that presented in the proposed rule (79 FR 7136, February 6, 
2014). Updated information includes data collected during the 2013 
field season (Bangs et al. 2013, entire) and additional information 
requested by peer and public reviewers.
    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

[[Page 9134]]

original scientific data used at the time the species was classified 
were in error.
    A recovered species is one that no longer meets the Act's 
definition of endangered or of threatened. Determining whether the 
status of a species has improved to the point that it can be delisted 
or downlisted requires consideration of whether the species is 
endangered or threatened because of the same five categories of threats 
specified in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. For species that are already 
listed as endangered or threatened, this analysis of threats is an 
evaluation of both the substantial 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 an ``endangered species'' for purposes of the Act if 
it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a ``significant portion 
of its range'' and is a ``threatened species'' if it is likely to 
become 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 first evaluate whether the currently listed species, the Oregon 
chub, should be considered endangered or threatened 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 rule, we define 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; 58 FR 53800, October 18, 1993, p. 53800). 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 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. 
Since 2002, the 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 NMFS on the USACE's Willamette River 
Basin Project (see description below). The USACE also has a MOU with 
TNC regarding the 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 
will 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.
    Since 1992, the Oregon chub was introduced and established in 21 
secure, isolated habitats (Bangs et al. 2013, p. 15). 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 less 
vulnerable, as compared to connected habitats, 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 
2013, we estimated 106,408 Oregon chub in the 21 introduced 
populations. By contrast, we estimated 53,255 Oregon chub in the 56 
naturally occurring populations. Eleven of the introduction sites are 
in public ownership by Federal and State agencies that manage these 
sites for conservation of the Oregon chub, and we have no information 
that suggest these sites would be managed otherwise into the 
foreseeable future.
    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, the 
landowners received 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 most or all of 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.
    In 2013, 20 of the 23 populations that met the recovery plan 
criteria for delisting were located on State, Federal, Tribal, or other 
property managed for long-term conservation; 3 populations were located 
on privately owned property. The close knit working relationship with 
private landowners is extremely important for the recovery of

[[Page 9135]]

Oregon chub; 40 percent of all Oregon chub populations exist on 
privately owned property. We see no reason why the conservation efforts 
of landowners would cease after delisting, as all efforts have been 
voluntary. There are an additional 9 recently discovered or introduced 
populations that exist on public lands with abundances greater than 500 
adult Oregon chub, further supporting our determination to delist the 
species.
    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 the 
NMFS completed consultation with the USACE, BPA, 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 
Willamette Project's effects to the Oregon chub, the bull trout, and 
bull trout critical habitat (Service 2008b, entire), while the NMFS' 
biological opinion considered effects to threatened salmon and 
steelhead (salmonids) and associated critical habitat (NMFS 2008, 
entire). 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 of flow management 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, the 
ODFW sampled fish assemblages and monitored 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 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 were accessible to 
nonnative fishes that prey upon or compete with the Oregon chub for 
resources.
    The discovery of Oregon chub in these connected sites facilitated a 
better understanding of the diversity of habitats occupied by Oregon 
chub, and prompted the ODFW to shift their basin-wide sampling efforts 
from 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 Oregon chub also occupied many of these 
frequently connected habitats. Between 2009 and 2013, the ODFW 
discovered 34 additional Oregon chub populations throughout the 3 
recovery subbasins (Bangs et al. 2013, pp. 6-8). In 2013, 14 of the 23 
populations that met the delisting criteria were in naturally occurring 
sloughs, beaver pools, and pond habitats. Fifty-six of the 77 habitats 
containing Oregon chub were naturally occurring; 21 populations were 
introduced. In addition, 50 Oregon chub populations are located in 
habitat that experiences some level of connectivity to the adjacent 
river channel. The Service has determined that the minimum aquatic area 
necessary to support a population of at least 500 adult Oregon chub is 
500 square meters (m\2\) (5,400 square feet (ft\2\)) (74 FR 10412, 
March 10, 2009, p. 10417). Out of the 77 populations, only a single 
location, Dougren Island Slough, has an aquatic area smaller than 500 
m\2\ (5,400 ft\2\); the site is 400 m\2\ (4,300 ft\2\) and supported 
1,700 adult Oregon chub in 2013.
    Several anthropogenic and natural environmental factors, discussed 
below, may continue to have effects on Oregon chub and its habitat in 
the foreseeable future. Many of these factors are included in this 
discussion because the Service previously identified them 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 45 connected habitats that are downstream 
of Willamette Project dams or adjacent to reservoirs; these habitats 
are influenced by Willamette Project operations. The Willamette Project 
biological opinions were signed in 2008, and continue until 2023 (NMFS 
2008, p. 1-11; Service 2008b, p. 85). 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 that which existed prior to the construction of the dams 
(i.e., river temperatures downstream of the reservoirs are now warmer 
in early summer, and cooler in the late summer and early fall). The 
USACE also operates 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 works 
with partners in the Willamette River Basin as part of TNC's 
Sustainable Rivers Project to implement a set of environmental flow 
objectives designed to improve channel morphology in a manner that will 
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. The ODFW has a monitoring program in place (Bangs et al. 
2011a, entire) to detect any negative effects on Oregon chub and its 
habitat. With the delisting of Oregon chub, this monitoring

[[Page 9136]]

program, which is detailed in our PDM plan, will continue for several 
years post-delisting (Service and ODFW 2013, entire). The 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. Additional discussion about temperature and instream flows is 
presented in the ``Effects of Climate Change'' section (also in Factor 
A).
    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 
initial Fall Creek Reservoir 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 and three previously undocumented Oregon chub populations were 
found. 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 farther 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 these 
impacts.
    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 among the Service, ODFW, USACE, and other land managers. 
Additionally, in cooperation with the USACE, we developed monitoring 
guidance and recommended responses in the event a drawdown is planned 
(Service and ODFW 2013, pp. 18-19). We do not anticipate that potential 
negative impacts from reservoir drawdowns will affect the overall 
status of Oregon chub. Additional discussion about reservoir drawdown 
is presented in the ``Effects of Climate Change'' section (also in 
Factor A).
    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 
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 critical to meeting recovery criteria because 
additional surveys in the Middle Fork Willamette River subbasin have 
found that the subbasin has the highest number of Oregon chub 
populations (29 populations) across the range of the species. 
Currently, 17 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. 
Analysis performed by the USACE determined that from 1936 to 1999, low 
flow and drought conditions occurred 9 percent and 16 percent of the 
years, respectively (USACE 2007, pp. 2-45). If this occurs in the 
future, it 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 mapped the 
bathymetry (habitat depth) and installed equipment to measure pond 
elevation, area, volume, and temperature in Oregon chub sites that are 
influenced by Willamette Project flows. This information was used to 
determine the effect that low flows may have on the extent of habitat 
area available to Oregon chub. The USACE has considered these data in 
managing flows and has a notification process in

[[Page 9137]]

place to coordinate with the Service and the 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.). Further, when 
minimum targets cannot be met, the Service, ODFW, NMFS, and USACE 
coordinate on a regular basis to discuss reduced flow releases in 
advance; this coordination allows the Service to weigh in on the 
magnitude of reductions and mitigate any reductions in flows that may 
affect Oregon chub populations. This coordination will continue into 
the future, as required by the two biological opinions, for other 
listed fish species (Service 2008b, pp. 38-40; NMFS 2008, pp. 2-39 to 
2-43).
    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 Oregon chub in these three 
populations have either increased or are exhibiting a stable trend 
(Bangs et al. 2013, pp. 6-8).
    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 the 
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.
    In 2010, the USACE determined that the condition and reliability of 
the spillway gates at 13 Willamette Project dams represented an 
unacceptable risk to public safety (Bangs et al. 2011b, p. 16). To 
mitigate this risk, the USACE proposed implementing pool elevation 
restrictions at Willamette Project reservoirs to lower than normal 
levels to support maintenance and repair of the spillway gates. The 
imposed restrictions affected one population (Dexter Reservoir Alcove 
``PIT1'' site) of Oregon chub by reducing the pond below levels 
critical for Oregon chub survival. The Dexter Reservoir Alcove ``PIT1'' 
site had filled with sediment over the years and in consultation with 
the USACE, we 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 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 Dexter Reservoir Alcove ``PIT1'' site and Dexter RV Park 
Pond ``DEX3'' are both currently stable and contribute towards meeting 
recovery criteria for delisting (Bangs et al. 2013, p. 8). The 
translocation of Oregon chub into Hills Creek Pond created a large, 
secure population that is now the largest Oregon chub population within 
the Middle Fork Willamette River subbasin with an estimated abundance 
of 14,610 Oregon chub (Bangs et al. 2013, p. 8). Additional discussion 
about minimum flow requirements is presented in the ``Effects of 
Climate Change'' section (also in Factor A).
Siltation Resulting From Timber Harvest
    As previously noted, Oregon chub habitats are generally associated 
with low gradient floodplain habitats not generally subject to timber 
harvest activities. However, there are a small number of Oregon chub 
populations that exist within, or adjacent to, forested landscapes that 
were, or could be, subject to adverse effects of timber harvest. These 
adverse effects include siltation (deposition of fine sediment) of 
stream habitats from ground-disturbing activities involved with 
standard logging practices. State and private lands in Oregon are 
subject to water quality as well as fish and wildlife protective 
measures under the Oregon Forest Practices Act, whereas Federal lands 
are subject to land and resource management plans that also provide 
protective guidelines for water quality and fish and wildlife 
protections. While siltation resulting from timber harvest has not been 
identified as a significant threat to Oregon chub, there is at least 
one instance where siltation from timber harvest may have contributed 
to a decrease in habitat suitability and availability that resulted in 
a drop in chub abundance.
    In the 1990s, timber harvest occurred on private 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 pond downstream 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 Department of Transportation excavated accumulated sediment in 
the pond and created a pool that will provide a buffer from the effects 
of future siltation. The population subsequently rebounded and it now 
meets the delisting criterion for a stable or increasing trend over 7 
years.
    In 2012, timber harvest on private land occurred upstream of an 
Oregon chub site on the William L. Finley National Wildlife Refuge 
(Finley NWR) known as Gray Creek Swamp. Due to concerns about potential 
sedimentation to Oregon chub habitat in Gray Creek Swamp, we negotiated 
with the landowner who agreed to increase the width of the no-cut 
riparian buffer along the streams within the harvest area to reduce the 
risk of siltation in Oregon chub habitat downstream. Siltation of this 
Oregon chub habitat following harvest has not been observed, but the 
site will continue to be monitored by the ODFW during the 9-year post-
delisting monitoring period.
    The potential for adverse effects to Oregon chub habitat from 
timber harvest was also identified at three other sites: Dexter 
Reservoir Alcove ``PIT1'' site, Buckhead Creek, and Wicopee Pond 
(Scheerer 2008, pers. comm.). However, we did not observe levels of 
siltation at

[[Page 9138]]

these sites that resulted in habitat loss, and all of the Oregon chub 
populations within each of the five sites located downstream of harvest 
activities met the delisting criteria in 2013. Additionally, the U.S. 
Forest Service (USFS) manages several Oregon chub sites within the 
Willamette National Forest. As noted above, 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.
    While future siltation of habitats occupied by Oregon chub from 
timber harvest activities clearly is possible, the frequency is 
anticipated to be very low, as will be the potential number of affected 
populations. Given this fact, and the protections afforded by the 
Oregon Forest Practices Act and Federal land management plans, we do 
not believe siltation from timber harvest represents a substantial 
population-level threat to Oregon chub now or in the foreseeable 
future.
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 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 
cannot 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' resilience in recovering 
from periodic disturbance, as the species would have historically. 
Additional discussion about increased flood events is presented in the 
``Effects of Climate Change'' section (also in Factor A).
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, the 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 had not been observed previously at this site. The 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. We have not observed, and do not anticipate based on this one 
event, similar incidents in other Oregon chub habitats.
    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 ``Siltation Resulting 
from Timber Harvest''). Additionally, the USFS manages several Oregon 
chub sites 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 foreseeable 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 (Oregon Revised 
Statutes (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.
    During our analysis of the factors affecting the Oregon chub, we 
determined that spills via sewage discharge, hazardous cargo from 
trucks, railways and pipelines, which were identified as threats when 
the species was first listed, no longer pose a significant threat to 
the species. At the time of listing, of the nine Oregon chub 
populations known to exist, seven of these locations were directly 
adjacent to major transportation corridors where threats to water 
quality had the potential to impact Oregon chub. Currently, Oregon chub 
have been documented in 77 populations widely distributed throughout 
the Willamette River Basin; 20 of these locations are adjacent to 
transportation corridors. In addition, two populations are adjacent to 
sewage treatment plants. Despite the proximity to potential threats to 
water quality, in the 20 years since the Oregon chub was listed, only a 
few of these concerns have materialized, and even then, these were 
localized and of short duration. The current distribution of the Oregon 
chub in many abundant

[[Page 9139]]

populations located across multiple subbasins reduces the risk that the 
above factors will affect a large portion of Oregon chub and its 
habitat. In summary, we conclude that none of the existing or potential 
water quality-related threats, either alone or in combination with 
others, constitutes a substantial threat to the Oregon chub now or in 
the foreseeable future. Additional discussion about temperature and 
dissolved oxygen levels is presented in the ``Effects of Climate 
Change'' section (also in Factor A).
Aggradation
    Aggradation is an alluvial process where sediment deposition 
(deposition of all sizes of sediments, both coarse and fine) is more 
rapid than the capacity of a river to transport sediment downstream. We 
observed aggradation at the Geren Island North Channel in the North 
Santiam River. Natural movement of the river channel changed sediment 
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 Oregon chub habitat. To date, we have not 
observed a decline in the Geren Island population. With the exception 
of this site and habitats in Fall Creek, which we discussed previously, 
no other Oregon chub habitats are negatively impacted by aggradation. 
We consider the potential negative impacts to the overall status of 
Oregon chub from aggradation to be very low now and in the foreseeable 
future.
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 ecological process that ponds go through as they 
mature. As vegetation dies back seasonally, it deposits 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 ponds are 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. The Willamette Project dams were constructed in the 1940s 
through the 1960s. Oregon chub populations have persisted under managed 
flow conditions for more than 60 years. In addition, under the 
Service's Willamette Project biological opinion (Service 2008b, pp. 40-
51) and the NMFS Willamette Project biological opinion (NMFS 2008, pp. 
2-43 to 2-52), minimum flow levels established for listed salmonids 
will continue to protect Oregon chub habitat. Other non-regulatory 
efforts are working to restore floodplain function and sediment 
transport, such as TNC's Willamette Sustainable Rivers Project. In this 
project, TNC has developed an MOU with the USACE to release stored 
water in high-flow pulses to restore natural processes in managed 
portions of the Middle Fork, McKenzie, and Santiam Rivers. Given the 
MOU between the USACE and TNC 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 and benefit 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 determined that there is very little 
potential negative impact, if any, to the overall status of Oregon chub 
from succession.
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. Based on the wide 
distribution of Oregon chub, we consider the potential negative impact 
to the overall status of Oregon chub from irrigation withdrawals to be 
very low.
Effects Related to Climate Change
    Our analyses under the Act include consideration of observed or 
likely environmental changes resulting from ongoing and projected 
changes in climate. As defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change (IPCC), the term ``climate'' refers to the mean and 
variability of different types of weather conditions over time, with 30 
years being a typical period for such measurements, although shorter or 
longer periods also may be used (IPCC 2013a, p. 1450). The term 
``climate change'' thus refers to a change in the mean or the 
variability of relevant properties, which persists for an extended 
period, typically decades or longer, due to natural conditions (e.g., 
solar cycles) or human-caused changes in the composition of atmosphere 
or in land use (IPCC 2013a, p. 1,450).
    Scientific measurements spanning several decades demonstrate that 
changes in climate are occurring. In particular, warming of the climate 
system is unequivocal, and many of the observed changes in the last 60 
years are unprecedented over decades to millennia (IPCC 2013b, p. 4). 
The current rate of climate change may be as fast as any extended 
warming period over the past 65 million years and is projected to 
accelerate in the next 30 to 80 years (National Research Council 2013, 
p. 5). Thus, rapid climate change is adding to other sources of 
extinction pressures, such as land use and invasive species, which will 
likely place extinction rates in this era among just a handful of the 
severe biodiversity crises observed in Earth's geological record 
(American Association for the Advancement of Sciences (AAAS) 2014, p. 
17).

[[Page 9140]]

    Examples of various other observed and projected changes in climate 
and associated effects and risks, and the basis for them, are provided 
for global and regional scales in recent reports issued by the IPCC 
(2013c, 2014), and similar types of information for the United States 
and regions within it can be found in the National Climate Assessment 
(Melillo et al. 2014, entire).
    Results of scientific analyses presented by the IPCC show that most 
of the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid-
20th century cannot be explained by natural variability in climate and 
is ``extremely likely'' (defined by the IPCC as 95 to 100 percent 
likelihood) due to the observed increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) 
concentrations in the atmosphere as a result of human activities, 
particularly carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use (IPCC 2013b, 
p. 17 and related citations).
    Scientists use a variety of climate models, which include 
consideration of natural processes and variability, as well as various 
scenarios of potential levels and timing of GHG emissions, to evaluate 
the causes of changes already observed and to project future changes in 
temperature and other climate conditions. Model results yield very 
similar projections of average global warming until about 2030, and 
thereafter the magnitude and rate of warming vary through the end of 
the century depending on the assumptions about population levels, 
emissions of GHGs, and other factors that influence climate change. 
Thus, absent extremely rapid stabilization of GHGs at a global level, 
there is strong scientific support for projections that warming will 
continue through the 21st century, and that the magnitude and rate of 
change will be influenced substantially by human actions regarding GHG 
emissions (IPCC 2013b, 2014; entire).
    Global climate projections are informative, and, in some cases, the 
only or the best scientific information available for us to use. 
However, projected changes in climate and related impacts can vary 
substantially across and within different regions of the world (e.g., 
IPCC 2013c, 2014; entire) and within the United States (Melillo et al. 
2014, entire). Therefore, we use ``downscaled'' projections when they 
are available and have been developed through appropriate scientific 
procedures, because such projections provide higher resolution 
information that is more relevant to spatial scales used for analyses 
of a given species (see Glick et al. 2011, pp. 58-61, for a discussion 
of downscaling).
    Various changes in climate may have direct or indirect effects on 
species. These may be positive, neutral, or negative, and they may 
change over time, depending on the species and other relevant 
considerations, such as interactions of climate with other variables 
such as habitat fragmentation (for examples, see Franco et al. 2006; 
Forister et al. 2010; Galbraith et al. 2010; Chen et al. 2011). In 
addition to considering individual species, scientists are evaluating 
potential climate change-related impacts to, and responses of, 
ecological systems, habitat conditions, and groups of species (e.g., 
Deutsch et al. 2008; Berg et al. 2010; Euskirchen et al. 2009; 
McKechnie and Wolf 2010; Sinervo et al. 2010; Beaumont et al. 2011; 
McKelvey et al. 2011; Rogers and Schindler 2011).
    Climate change effects present substantial uncertainty regarding 
the future environmental conditions in the Willamette River Basin and 
may place an added stress on the Oregon chub and its habitats. The IPCC 
has concluded that recent warming is already strongly affecting aquatic 
biological systems, as evidenced by increased runoff and earlier spring 
peak discharge in many glacier- and snow-fed rivers (IPCC 2007, p. 8). 
Projections for climate change effects in North America include 
decreased snowpack, more winter flooding, and reduced summer flows 
(IPCC 2007, p. 14), which may increase periods of drought (Oregon 
Climate Change Research Institute (OCCRI) 2010a, p. 112).
    Observed changes in temperature in the Pacific Northwest (PNW) 
already show an increase of 1.5 degrees Celsius over the past century 
due to human activities (OCCRI 2010b, p. 6). Global climate models 
project temperature increases for the PNW of approximately 2 to 4 
degrees Celsius (3 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2080 (OCCRI 2010b, p. 
7). Projections for climate change effects in the Willamette Valley in 
the next century also include warmer air temperatures that will lead to 
lower soil moisture and increased evaporation from streams and lakes 
(Climate Leadership Initiative (CLI) and National Center for 
Conservation Science and Policy (NCCSP) 2009, p. 9; OCCRI 2010a, p. 
71). The frequency of short-term (3- and 6-month) droughts in the 
Willamette Valley will likely increase due to decreased summer 
rainfall, which may result in reduced summer baseflows and exacerbate 
water temperature increases. However, long-term droughts (12 and 24 
months) are not projected to substantially change across most of the 
Willamette Basin (OCCRI 2010a, p. 112).
    The 29,700-km\2\ (11,467-mi\2\) Willamette River Basin is a large 
complex river basin, influenced by two mountain ranges: the Cascades 
and the Coast Range (Chang and Jung 2010, pp. 187-190). The rain-
dominated Coast Range occupies about 20 percent of the basin; the 
Cascade Range occupies more than 50 percent, and includes the rain-
dominated Western Cascades and the snow-dominated High Cascades. The 
Willamette Valley region lies between these two ranges. Thus, the basin 
has complex terrain and geology, and a wide range of elevations that 
influence the timing and magnitude of runoff. Given this physical 
variability, the effects of climate change will not uniformly affect 
all areas or subbasins of the Willamette River (Chang and Jung 2010, 
pp. 194-204).
    The hydrology of the Willamette River Basin is largely influenced 
by winter rainfall and spring snowmelt, with 77 percent of the flow 
occurring between November and April (Chang and Jung 2010, p. 190). 
Overall, the Willamette Basin is considered water abundant in Oregon. 
In addition to rainfall, the basin is influenced by spring snowmelt and 
spring-fed tributaries at higher elevations (e.g., High Cascades 
region), and shallow groundwater aquifers in low-elevation areas in the 
valley that recharge during the rainy season (OCCRI 2010a, p. 97-104). 
The Willamette River and its tributaries are highly altered with 
multiple large reservoirs and other human influences such as dams, 
levees, and floodplain development. Multiple, large USACE dams, 
constructed in the 1950s and 1960s for flood reduction, altered 
seasonal discharge and temperatures, reduced peak flood flows, and 
augmented summer low flows (OCCRI 2010a, p. 77). Climate change effects 
that may affect Oregon chub include increased winter flooding, 
increased temperatures, reduced summer baseflows, and increased 
negative interactions with nonnative fishes. Each of these is discussed 
below.
    Increased Winter Floods--Effects of climate change predicted for 
the PNW may include increased winter flood events (OCCRI 2010a, pp. 87-
88). These events, which are often associated with an increased 
proportion of annual precipitation falling as rain instead of snow and 
reduced snowpack, may better mimic natural riverine processes (such as 
channel migration, scour, etc.) to create and maintain riverine 
habitats on which Oregon chub depend. Oregon chub evolved in a dynamic, 
alluvial river with broad floodplains and braided reaches with many 
side channels, sloughs, and other similar slack-water habitats. Large 
floods

[[Page 9141]]

commonly rearranged these side-channel habitats, creating new habitats 
in some locations, and filling in other areas. The construction and 
operation of the USACE's Willamette Project, a system of 13 flood 
control dams, has reduced flooding and associated habitat forming 
processes in the Willamette River Basin, thereby simplifying mid- to 
low-elevation, aquatic habitats considerably. During previous flood 
events, the Willamette Project dams have been able to capture and 
reduce the magnitude of the flow to keep flood waters from impacting 
downstream communities; the magnitude of these flows were still high 
enough to alter the stream and floodplain habitat. Increased flows 
associated with climate change may contribute to the creation and 
maintenance of off-channel floodplain habitats upon which Oregon chub 
depend (e.g., side channels, oxbows, etc.), thereby increasing the 
amount of suitable habitat for the species. For these reasons, it is 
possible that increases in winter floods associated with climate change 
may benefit Oregon chub through the creation and maintenance of their 
habitats.
    Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Effects--The Oregon chub is 
tolerant of a wide range of temperatures and thus less vulnerable to 
temperature effects of climate change than other listed fish species in 
the Willamette River Basin (e.g., bull trout, spring chinook salmon, 
and winter steelhead). Oregon chub do not require cool temperatures for 
spawning or other life-history needs and appear tolerant of low 
dissolved oxygen (DO) levels. DO levels and temperature are related 
because at higher temperatures, water has a reduced ability to store 
oxygen. While the upper lethal temperature limit of Oregon chub has not 
been determined, the best available data based on field observations 
suggest this limit is approximately 31 to 35 degrees Celsius (88 to 95 
degrees Fahrenheit) for adult Oregon chub, and that tolerance may be 
associated with low DO levels (Scheerer and Apke 1997, p. 25; Bangs et 
al. 2009, p. 17). Temperature and DO tolerances for juvenile Oregon 
chub appear to be higher than that of adults (Scheerer and Apke 1997, 
p. 25; Bangs et al. 2009, p. 17). The observed maximum summer 
temperature range of occupied Oregon chub habitat is from 23 to 39 
degrees Celsius (73 to 102 degrees Fahrenheit) (Bangs 2014, pers. 
comm.). Despite a proportion of these habitats experience temperatures 
in excess of 35 degrees Celsius (95 degrees Fahrenheit) (which may 
result in the loss of some individuals within that population), an 
entire population has not been lost due to temperature increases and 
associated low DO levels.
    While global climate models project a temperature increase for the 
PNW of approximately 2 to 4 degrees Celsius (3.6 to 7.2 degrees 
Fahrenheit) by 2080 (OCCRI 2010b, p. 7), climate models primarily 
predict air temperature changes, which have led many to believe that 
water temperatures will also correspondingly rise (Arismendi et al. 
2012, p. 1). However, water temperatures did not follow expected 
warming trends or experience the same magnitude of increased 
temperature as air temperature when analyzing stream temperature data 
from the Pacific continental United States (Arismendi et al. 2012, p. 
4). In many cases, water temperatures were found to have more cooling 
trends than warming trends since 1987, and less variability, especially 
in highly human-influenced rivers (Arismendi et al. 2012, pp. 4-5). 
Such is the case in the Willamette River; the presence of the 13 USACE 
flood control dams in the Willamette Valley allows for some 
amelioration of extreme climate variation, such as temperature extremes 
and drought. These large dams may be able to adaptively operate in the 
future to partially offset some of the potential increases in water 
temperature and flow reductions below the dams, if determined 
appropriate.
    Releases of water below the USACE's Willamette Project dams 
generally target water temperatures ranging from 12 to 18 degrees 
Celsius (54 to 64 degrees Fahrenheit), depending on the season. These 
releases decrease downstream summer river temperatures by 6 to 10 
degrees Celsius (10.8 to 18 degrees Fahrenheit) from historic 
temperatures (Rounds 2010, p. 43) and augment summer low flows (OCCRI 
2010a, p. 77). The USACE is working to better mimic historical 
temperature conditions through water releases at several dams, which 
primarily target temperature benefits to federally listed salmonids 
that remain protected under the Act. These salmonid species require 
much cooler waters than Oregon chub. For example, juvenile salmonids 
generally prefer temperatures from 11.7 to 14.7 degrees Celsius (53.1 
to 58.5 degrees Fahrenheit), and spawning temperatures for these 
species are typically below 13.0 degrees Celsius (55.4 degrees 
Fahrenheit) (Richter and Kolmes 2005, pp. 27-28). The needs of these 
listed salmonids will continue to influence future management 
decisions. Thus, dam releases targeting these cooler temperature 
requirements will be protective of Oregon chub habitats downstream of 
these dams.
    Potential reductions in summer baseflows may increase water 
temperatures (OCCRI 2010a, p. 114). Increased frequency of short-term 
droughts (3 to 6 months) may reduce the USACE's ability to meet all of 
the minimum instream flow volumes, especially during late summer and 
early fall. Many populations (40 out of 77 populations, and 10 of the 
23 populations that meet recovery criteria) exist in riverine habitats 
influenced by releases from the USACE's dams.
    While increased frequency of short-term drought may reduce the 
USACE's ability to meet required instream flows for listed salmonids, 
we do not anticipate these reductions will result in temperature 
increases that constitute a substantial threat to Oregon chub now or 
into the foreseeable future. These dams currently maintain cooler 
summer temperatures and higher summer baseflows below the dams than 
existed prior to dam construction, and thereby provide a buffer from 
increased temperatures. Further, the USACE is required to coordinate 
with the Service, ODFW, and NMFS when minimum instream flows cannot be 
met, which allows the Service to weigh in on the magnitude of 
reductions and mitigate negative effects to Oregon chub populations if 
necessary. For these reasons, we determine potential instream flow 
reductions, and any associated temperature increases and reduced DO 
levels due to increased short-term droughts do not constitute a 
substantial threat to Oregon chub in habitats below the dams.
    Other populations exist outside the influence of the dam releases. 
Eighteen populations exist in ``up-slope'' habitats that are not 
directly influenced rivers (6 of these populations met all recovery 
criteria in 2013); 14 populations occur on or adjacent to undammed 
rivers (3 met recovery criteria); 5 are adjacent to USACE reservoirs (4 
met recovery criteria). The potential effects to each of these habitat 
categories are discussed below.
    The 18 ``upslope'' populations were introductions into isolated 
ponds, as discussed above. Predicted reductions in summer rainfall and 
increased evaporation may reduce the volume or depth of these ponds in 
late summer, increase water temperature, and correspondingly decrease 
DO levels in these habitats. However, these introduction sites were 
selected because the habitat is expected to remain stable during 
extreme climatic events such as droughts or floods. Each of these 
habitats was chosen for its ability to remain wetted during drought and 
provide a diversity of habitats

[[Page 9142]]

throughout a range of pool elevations. For example, some sites rely on 
ground water springs or modern water control structures to maintain 
pond elevations throughout summer.
    While it is possible that climate change may impact some aquatic 
habitats to the extent they no longer can support Oregon chub, the 
probability of that occurring is low given the wide tolerances of this 
species to water temperatures and corresponding DO levels. The 
diversity of isolated Oregon chub habitats spread across multiple 
watersheds provides further buffers against population level impacts 
from climate change. For these reasons, we determine that temperature 
effects due to climate change to these ``up-slope'' habitats do not 
constitute a substantial threat to Oregon chub now or into the 
foreseeable future.
    Fourteen Oregon chub populations occur on or adjacent to undammed 
rivers: 13 of these populations are naturally occurring and on or 
adjacent to rain-dominated, undammed tributaries to the Willamette 
River (e.g., Marys, Molalla, and Luckiamute Rivers, and Muddy Creek); 
and 1 population occurs in a spring-fed pond upstream of a USACE dam 
and thus is unlikely to experience substantial temperature increases or 
other negative impacts from climate change. For the 13 populations, 
potential reductions in summer baseflows and associated increases in 
water temperature are the most likely negative impacts to these 
populations from climate change effects (including short-term 
droughts). However, uncertainty in the extent and magnitude of summer 
baseflow reductions remains high despite modeling efforts (Chang and 
Jung 2010, pp. 198-202; see following discussion). Given this 
uncertainty regarding summer baseflow reductions, we cannot predict to 
what level summer baseflows may drop (and thereby increase water 
temperatures) and negatively impact these habitats.
    We anticipate few of these habitats will be negatively affected to 
such an extent Oregon chub cannot exist given the high tolerance of 
Oregon chub to temperature and associated reduced DO levels, the fact 
that ground water connections to these habitats may remain, and these 
habitats are distributed across several watersheds with differing 
influences (Chang and Jung 2010, p. 204). For these reasons, we 
determine that temperature effects due to climate change in these rain-
dominated, undammed tributary habitats do not constitute a substantial 
threat to Oregon chub now or into the foreseeable future.
    The remaining five populations occupy habitats adjacent to USACE 
reservoirs in the Middle Fork Willamette River: Two populations at 
Lookout Point Reservoir, two at Dexter Reservoir, and one at Fall Creek 
Reservoir. Reductions in snow, increases in rain, increased frequency 
of short-term droughts, instream flow requirements, and related 
increased water demand for agricultural and municipal uses during 
droughts may put additional stresses on water supply in the Willamette 
Basin. These stresses may reduce the USACE's ability to maintain 
reservoir levels year-round, especially during the late summer and 
early fall. These reservoir-associated populations are most likely to 
experience temperature increases, reduced DO levels, and reduction in 
habitat from loss of connection with the reservoirs, which may occur in 
the future during predicted short-term droughts. However, we have 
direct experience with this situation: in 2010, the USACE drew these 
reservoirs down through the summer of 2011 for dam-safety repairs.
    The ODFW monitored these populations closely during and after 
reservoirs returned to normal levels (Bangs et al. 2012, p. 18). No 
populations were lost due to these reduced reservoir levels, despite 
reduced habitat and high summer temperatures. While some populations 
experienced a decline the following year, one population increased. 
Those populations that experienced a decline due to lowered reservoir 
levels recovered to previous abundance levels (Bangs et al. 2012, p. 
10).
    In summary, the Oregon chub is tolerant of a wide range of 
temperatures and not dependent on cool waters to complete its life 
history. Oregon chub populations are dispersed across a wide range of 
diverse habitats, each influenced by site specific factors. The 
predicted increases in water temperature and associated reductions in 
DO levels from climate change effects are not anticipated to exceed the 
tolerances for Oregon chub throughout its range. Also, coordination 
between the Service and the USACE is required when minimum instream 
flow requirements will not be met. For these reasons, we determine that 
temperature increases associated with climate change effects are not a 
threat to Oregon chub across its range.
    Oregon chub are tolerant of a wide range of temperatures and 
associated decreases in DO, and are thus less vulnerable to temperature 
effects of climate change than other listed fish species in the 
Willamette Valley. Information specific to Oregon chub regarding its 
ability to make behavioral or physiological responses to temperature 
changes is not available. However, given their observed temperature 
tolerance (up to 31 to 35 degrees Celsius, 88 to 95 degrees Fahrenheit) 
relative to potential climate increases in water temperature, the 
coordination of instream flows and reservoir management with the USACE, 
and the multiple populations across a range of ecological settings and 
tributaries in the Willamette Basin, we conclude that temperature 
effects from climate change do not constitute a substantial threat to 
Oregon chub now, or in the foreseeable future.
    Reduction in Summer Baseflows--Climate change effects with the most 
potential to negatively affect Oregon chub are reduced summer 
baseflows, which may reduce habitat availability within existing 
habitats and exacerbate increases in water temperature and declines in 
DO. Chang and Jung (2010, entire) examined future runoff projections in 
the Willamette River Basin under eight global climate models and two 
emissions scenarios. Some consistent trends exist between different 
models with regards to summer flow conditions: the 7-day low flow 
minimum decreased in most subbasins of the Willamette River Basin, and 
the Western Cascade basins (medium elevation) showed greater declines 
than those in the Willamette Valley (low elevation) and the High 
Cascades (high elevation) (Chang and Jung 2010, pp. 198-202). However, 
the range of predicted changes was much more variable in the Willamette 
Valley and Western Cascades where the majority of Oregon chub 
populations exist. Further, the predicted changes for both summer 
runoff and the 7-day low flow minimum were very different depending on 
the emissions scenario used in the model, and the predicted changes 
varied by subbasin (Chang and Jung 2010, pp. 201-202).
    Given the uncertainty in climate change predictions with differing 
models and future emission scenarios, we cannot specify the amount of 
reductions in summer baseflows for each subbasin and extrapolate how 
those reductions will affect habitat availability, temperatures, and DO 
(alone or in concert) in individual Oregon chub habitats. Such fine-
scale models are not available. Despite modeled projections of changes 
in temperature, precipitation, and runoff at the global, regional, and 
basin scale, we cannot: (1) Predict with any certainty how those 
changes may influence Oregon chub populations and their

[[Page 9143]]

individual habitats in the Willamette Valley; and (2) accurately 
describe and assess the net effects when considering the potential 
negative consequences together with the potential positive effects to 
Oregon chub populations.
    Oregon chub habitats are often located in side-channel and off-
channel areas that are highly influenced by site-specific conditions, 
including, but not limited to factors such as above- and below-ground 
water connections between the habitat and the river system or aquifer, 
and total volume and depth of the habitat. For example, lower baseflows 
that seasonally disconnect above-ground flow to a side-channel habitat 
may or may not result in reduced habitat availability and increased 
temperatures, depending on whether cooler, below-ground water 
connection to the side channel is maintained.
    Oregon chub habitats exist throughout the Willamette River Basin in 
a variety of subbasins at a variety of elevations, with varying geology 
and topography, and with differing climatic influences. Modeling 
conducted by Chang and Jung (2010, pp. 198-204) suggests that the 
interactions between climate change and land surface hydrology are 
complex. Because of these varying factors, each subbasin will respond 
differently to the effects of climate change. Thus, not all Oregon chub 
populations in the Willamette River Basin will be similarly affected by 
climate change effects. Because of the variety of habitats within a 
single subbasin, it is unlikely that all habitats within a single 
subbasin will experience negative effects to the extent that habitat no 
longer supports Oregon chub. Further, potential reductions in summer 
baseflows in portions of the Willamette Basin will likely be moderated 
by the continuing operations of the USACE's large storage dams that 
capture a portion of the flood flows from winter and spring 
precipitation events (including snowmelt) and gradually release these 
flows over the summer. Thus, for many existing Oregon chub populations, 
we do not anticipate substantial reductions in summer baseflows. If 
such reductions are necessary, our coordination with the USACE, as 
described earlier in this document, will allow the Service to minimize 
and mitigate impacts to Oregon chub.
    For Oregon chub habitats outside of the influence of USACE dam 
releases, insufficient information exists to determine the magnitude of 
future reductions in summer baseflows and associated changes in 
temperature and DO levels. Substantial reductions, if they occur, may 
result in the reduction of available habitat or in some instances the 
loss of individual populations. However, we do not anticipate such 
negative effects across the range of Oregon chub. Based on the existing 
information collected on Oregon chub since its listing, we anticipate 
Oregon chub will continue to exist because of its demonstrated 
resiliency in the past in the face of continual change: Oregon chub 
have survived despite significant landscape changes across the 
Willamette River Basin, including the effects of many dams and 
floodplain development. Studies to date have shown this species is 
highly adaptable, and able to quickly colonize new habitats. The 
effects of climate change will continue to progress into the future 
gradually. We anticipate that not all Oregon chub populations as they 
exist today will still exist 40 to 50 years from now, but that Oregon 
chub will exist in abundant and stable populations throughout the 
Willamette River Basin, colonizing new side channels and habitats as 
hydrology and floodplains adjust to a changed climate. Thus, we 
determine that reductions in summer baseflows and any associated 
increases in temperatures and declines in DO levels do not constitute a 
substantial threat to Oregon chub now, nor will they be in the 
foreseeable future.
    Competition and Predation by Nonnative Fish Species--Climate change 
effects may locally alter Oregon chub habitats to the advantage of 
nonnative species known to compete with and prey on Oregon chub via 
increasing water temperature and reducing connectivity to river systems 
during low flow conditions (e.g., summer baseflows). However, the best 
available data show no relationship between the presence of nonnative 
fish and Oregon chub population abundance trends (Bangs et al. 2013, p. 
17). Thirteen of the 23 populations that met delisting criteria with 
either a stable or increasing abundance trend in 2013 occur with 
nonnative fish; 1 of the 2 populations that had a declining abundance 
trend occurs with nonnative fish (Bangs et al. 2013, p. 17). The 
primary driver affecting the abundance and dominance of nonnative fish 
in suitable Oregon chub habitats appears to be connectivity of these 
off-channel habitats to the larger river system. To date, these 
nonnative competitors and predators have not completely overtaken 
suitable Oregon chub habitats that remain seasonally connected to these 
river systems because annual flood flows disrupt and flush the 
nonnative species out of these suitable habitats, whereas Oregon chub 
have developed behaviors that allow them to remain as they evolved with 
these high flows. In summary, we do not anticipate climate change 
effects on the abundance and distribution of nonnative fish in the 
Willamette Basin will increase competition and predation. We determine 
that this competition and predation does not constitute a substantial 
threat to Oregon chub now, nor will they be in the foreseeable future.
    Summary for Climate Change Effects--The Willamette River Basin is a 
geologically complex system, as well as a highly altered and managed 
system with multiple large reservoirs and other human influences. 
Although effects of climate change are almost certain to impact aquatic 
habitats in the Willamette River Basin (CLI and NCCSP 2009, p. 1), 
researchers have great uncertainty about the specific effects of 
climate change, including which models and emission scenarios are the 
best representation of the future. Thus, despite modeled projections of 
changes in temperature, precipitation, and runoff, we cannot: (1) 
Predict with any certainty how those changes may influence individual 
Oregon chub populations and their habitats in the Willamette Basin; and 
(2) accurately describe and assess the net effects when considering the 
potential negative consequences together with the potential positive 
effects to Oregon chub populations.
    The effects of climate change have potentially both positive and 
negative impacts to Oregon chub habitats; there is a wide diversity of 
habitats occupied by Oregon chub that are individually influenced by 
the site-specific factors and suitable habitats for Oregon chub are 
found throughout the Willamette Basin. Oregon chub as a species has 
proven itself highly adaptable and resilient to change. We cannot 
project with any certainty whether the effects of climate change will 
provide more benefits or threats to Oregon chub. However, the best 
available information suggests that Oregon chub and their habitats are 
not highly vulnerable to the potential effects of climate change across 
their range and we do not anticipate that climate change will have 
population level effects to Oregon chub.
    The Service 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

[[Page 9144]]

program worked to establish conditions that allow populations of 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 within 
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 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-related impacts, succession, and the effects of 
climate change. Modifications to the Willamette Project dam operations 
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 the USACE and TNC. Sedimentation from timber harvest is not 
currently indicated in the decline of any Oregon chub populations, and 
we expect that riparian buffers protected from timber harvest under 
State and Federal regulations will provide habitat protection in future 
timber harvest operations. Flooding and high-water events are largely 
unpredictable. However, Oregon chub evolved within a dynamic 
environment and the current distribution of Oregon chub in many 
abundant populations within subbasins and across multiple subbasins 
reduces the risk that these events will negatively affect a large 
proportion of Oregon chub and its habitat. Declines in water quality 
related to factors such as chemical contamination, nutrient enrichment, 
siltation, and hazardous material spills have the potential to affect 
individual populations, but few observations of negative effects due to 
water quality issues have materialized over the past 20 years that we 
have been monitoring Oregon chub populations. Succession was a factor 
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 
the known Oregon chub 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 will continue 
for the next few years. This research may lead to an improved 
understanding of the habitat characteristics that support abundant 
populations of 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 was 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 Oregon chub.
    In summary, the factors discussed under Factor A continue to occur 
across the subbasins occupied by 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 better understand the diversity of connected 
habitats used by Oregon chub and, as a result, 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 foreseeable future, 
we conclude that the present or threatened destruction, modification, 
or curtailment of its habitat or range does not constitute a 
substantial threat to Oregon chub now and is not expected to in the 
foreseeable 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, April 
23, 2010), we identified predation by, and competition with, nonnative 
fishes as primary threats to 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) created conditions that favor 
nonnative, predatory fishes, and reservoirs throughout the basin have 
become sources of continual nonnative fish invasions in the reaches 
downstream (Li et al. 1987, p. 198). Significant declines in Oregon 
chub abundance due to the presence of nonnative fishes were documented. 
For instance, after floods in 1996, nonnative fish were first collected 
from several sites containing 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).
    Nonnative fish, which prey upon Oregon chub, were also 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. A regulatory mechanism is in place to 
prevent the translocation of nonnative fish. Within the State of 
Oregon, it is unlawful to transport, release, or attempt to release any 
live

[[Page 9145]]

fish into the waters of this State (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 Oregon 
chub.
    Predatory, nonnative centrarchids (bass and sunfish), western 
mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis), and bullhead catfish (Ameiurus spp.) 
are common in the off-channel habitats preferred by Oregon chub 
(Scheerer 2002, p. 1,075). The Oregon chub is most abundant at sites 
where nonnative fishes are absent (Scheerer 2007, p. 96). However, ODFW 
biologists recently found many abundant Oregon chub populations that 
coexist with nonnative fish in hydrologically connected habitats (Bangs 
et al. 2011a, pp. 21-24). One of the primary objectives of the 
floodplain study funded under the Willamette Project biological opinion 
(Service 2008b, pp. 180-182; 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 
Oregon chub and nonnative fish. The results to date indicate that 
spatial and seasonal differences in temperature within these off-
channel habitats may provide areas that are suitable for Oregon chub 
but not suitable for nonnatives. In other words, Oregon chub may be 
able to coexist with nonnative fish because the habitat provides a 
diverse range of temperatures that partitions habitats among the 
species (Bangs et al. 2011a, pp. 9-10 and 16-17). Currently, 41 percent 
of all known Oregon chub habitats and 50 percent of the habitats 
supporting abundant populations (more than 500 Oregon chub) contain 
nonnative fishes. Research conducted under the study will continue to: 
(1) Improve our understanding of the effects of nonnative fishes on 
Oregon chub in these connected habitats; and (2) document the habitat 
conditions that allow these species to coexist. Sampling results to 
date indicate that Oregon chub coexist with nonnatives more frequently 
than previously known. Additional discussion about predation by 
nonnative fish is presented in the ``Effects of Climate Change'' 
section (discussed under Factor A).
    Bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) were identified as a threat to Oregon 
chub in the recovery plan (Service 1998, p. 13) because they may 
compete with Oregon chub for food resources (e.g., invertebrates). 
However, bullfrogs are prevalent in most of the habitats occupied by 
Oregon chub and their presence is not correlated with a decline in 
Oregon chub abundance (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 Oregon chub to coexist 
with nonnative fish are not yet well understood, we documented several 
abundant Oregon chub populations in multiple subbasins that coexist 
with 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 Oregon chub 
and nonnative fishes.
    While the presence of nonnative fishes in isolated sites may be 
associated with higher rates of predation on Oregon chub, the species 
has been introduced into 21 isolated habitats that are protected from 
the risk of invasion by nonnative fishes due to the habitat distance 
from the floodplain or other fish barriers. As discussed elsewhere in 
this document, these introductions act as refugial habitats, and the 
guidelines used to select sites ensure that these locations remain 
stable during extreme climactic events, such as droughts or floods. 
During major flooding in the Willamette River Basin in 1996, these 
sites remained isolated from neighboring water bodies. In addition, the 
introduction sites are less vulnerable to the threats of habitat loss 
compared to connected habitats, and the translocation guidelines 
ensured that the Oregon chub in these isolated populations are 
genetically diverse. Introduced populations at these sites have been 
highly successful, and the majority of Oregon chub individuals occur in 
populations at these sites. Therefore, based on the best available 
information, we conclude that disease and predation do not constitute 
substantial threats to Oregon chub now, nor are they expected to in the 
foreseeable 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 an 
endangered or a threatened species under the Act. We then identify and 
evaluate the adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms that may 
prevent or reduce those threats. The Oregon chub, however, is no longer 
facing substantial threats to its long-term survival due to 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 of this factor focuses on regulatory mechanisms not 
previously discussed that may provide benefits to Oregon chub.
    Wetlands and waterways in Oregon are protected by both Federal and 
State laws. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrates the 
Clean Water Act (CWA; 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.)), which regulates 
discharges of pollutants into waters of the United States and regulates 
water quality standards. The EPA sets standards for pollution control 
programs and water quality standards for all contaminants in surface 
waters. Many of the water quality criteria are set for human health 
standards or salmon and steelhead life stage needs, which exceed 
biological requirements for Oregon chub. For example, the upper 
temperature tolerance of Oregon chub is significantly higher than the 
maximum allowable temperatures set by EPA criteria for salmon and 
steelhead spawning and rearing.
    While we acknowledge that there are Oregon chub in reaches in the 
Willamette River that are on the section 303(d) list of impaired and 
threatened waters under the CWA, Oregon chub populations have continued 
to expand throughout the Willamette River Basin in spite of these 
section 303(d) waters. Further, we do not foresee future water quality 
declines (i.e., temperature, dissolved oxygen, biological criteria) 
that are a threat to the continued existence of Oregon chub and require 
its continued listing under the Act. The Service has consulted with the 
EPA on existing Oregon water quality standards and the Service's 
biological opinion concluded that the Oregon water quality standards 
are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Oregon chub 
(Service 2004, pp. 76-77). While the courts remanded the 2004 
biological opinion back to the Service, and we continue to work with 
the EPA to complete this consultation, the remand was based on thermal 
requirements for bull trout, not Oregon chub.
    Under section 404 of the CWA, the USACE regulates the discharge of 
dredged material and fill material into waters of the United States, 
including navigable waters and wetlands that may contain 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 Oregon

[[Page 9146]]

Department of State Lands (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 (1,350 cubic feet) 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 (Oregon Department 
of State Lands 2013, p. 64). Some actions, however, such as 
construction and maintenance of irrigation-diversion structures 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, consultation under section 7 of the Act is 
required. Individual permits are subject to a more rigorous review, as 
well as 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 EPA's proposed approval of the State of Oregon's 
water quality criteria for toxic pollutants (Service 2012, entire). 
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, we determined in our consultation with the EPA 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, or 
reach levels preventing Oregon chub from attaining the abundance and 
distribution criteria for delisting identified in the recovery plan 
(Service 2012, pp. 351-352).
    The Oregon chub is designated as ``Sensitive-Critical'' by the 
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 (ORS 496.171, 496.172, 496.176, 496.182, and 496.192). ODFW's 
``Sensitive-Critical'' designation encourages, but does not require, 
the implementation of conservation actions for the species; however, 
other State agencies, such as the DSL and the Oregon Water Resources 
Department, refer to the Sensitive Species List when making regulatory 
decisions.
    The ODFW's Sensitive Species List is reviewed and updated every 5 
years. Each taxonomic group of animals is reviewed by the ODFW 
biologists and scientific experts from other agencies, universities, 
and private organizations. The scientists consider new and historic 
information on species distribution, population trends, and biological 
needs; changes in threats; gaps in knowledge and data; recent 
conservation actions; and State and Federal programs or regulations. 
The scientists may propose to remove, add, or re-classify species based 
on this information. The draft list is then peer-reviewed by State, 
Federal, university, and consulting biologists. The ODFW is currently 
updating the Sensitive Species List and plans to retain the 
``Sensitive-Critical'' designation for Oregon chub for the duration of 
the post-delisting monitoring plan timeframe.

Summary of Factor D

    Although existing regulatory mechanisms offer limited protection to 
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 to negatively impact large numbers of 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 Oregon chub now, 
nor is it projected to in the future.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

Interspecific Competition With Nonnative Fishes
    Along with the adverse impacts of direct predation described under 
Factor C (above), nonnative fishes compete with Oregon chub for food 
resources, such as aquatic invertebrates. Competition with nonnative 
fishes may contribute to the decline in populations or exclusion of 
Oregon chub from suitable habitats. Observed feeding strategies and 
diet of nonnative fishes, particularly juvenile centrarchids and adult 
western mosquitofish, overlap with those described for 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 2,200 in one season after invasion by 
western mosquitofish, a nonnative fish that competes with adults and 
potentially predates on larval Oregon chub. The source of this invasion 
is unknown, but it is likely that the western mosquitofish were 
illegally introduced into the pond. The population remained above 1,000 
for the past 4 years (Bangs 2014, pers. comm.), demonstrating the 
ability of nonnative fish to competitively suppress Oregon chub 
populations. Other populations of the Oregon chub are possibly 
suppressed by competition with nonnative fishes. However, the current 
abundance of Oregon chub and its 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 overall status declines are 
observed. Additional discussion about competition by nonnative fish is 
presented in the ``Effects of Climate Change'' section (see Factor A).
Isolated Populations
    Twenty-eight populations of the Oregon chub are currently isolated; 
21 of these sites are introduced 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 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.

[[Page 9147]]

Without sufficient immigration, growth of local populations may be low 
and probability of extinction high (Burkey 1989, p. 78). The genetic 
analyses performed on Oregon chub (DeHaan et al. 2010, pp. 14-19; 2012, 
pp. 548-549) found high levels of genetic variation at most locations. 
Also, the genetic analyses found that our guidelines for establishing 
introduction sites are effective, and introductions stocked from 
multiple donor sources have higher variability than those from single 
donor sources. In addition, 50 of the 77 Oregon chub populations are 
located in habitat that experiences some level of connectivity to the 
adjacent river channel; 34 of these populations were discovered since 
we downlisted the Oregon chub to threatened status in 2010. 
Furthermore, the ODFW documented Oregon chub in new habitat created by 
floodplain processes in the McKenzie River subbasin, and documented 
voluntary movement of Oregon chub between populations in the Middle 
Fork Willamette River (Bangs et al. 2012, p. 19) and McKenzie River 
subbasins (Bangs et al. 2013, p. 17). These findings demonstrate the 
ability of Oregon chub to colonize new habitats and exchange genetic 
material between established populations. Manual transport of Oregon 
chub between populations has not been proposed, and we think it 
unnecessary at this time for the maintenance of populations. Although a 
recent genetic analysis found that Oregon chub in isolated habitats 
have 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 Oregon chub to threatened (75 FR 
21179, April 23, 2010), we expressed concern about genetic isolation 
due to the lack of habitat connectivity between Oregon chub 
populations. As stated above, we 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 
provides opportunities for genetic dispersal.

Summary of Factor E

    Interspecific competition with nonnative fishes and isolation from 
genetic exchange may affect Oregon chub populations in the future. 
However, we observed population declines related to competition with 
nonnative fishes in only one Oregon chub population, South Stayton 
Pond, a small habitat area with limited resources. Although this 
decline was substantial (abundance of 6,200 chub declined to 2,200 chub 
in one season), the population since stabilized and persists with about 
1,000 Oregon chub (Bangs et al. 2013, p. 6). We documented numerous 
additional abundant Oregon chub populations in habitats that are 
connected to the floodplain, which facilitates potential genetic 
exchange among populations. This has ameliorated the risk of a 
reduction in genetic diversity. The impacts associated with the effects 
of climate change will be somewhat ameliorated by the multiple storage 
dams in the Willamette River Basin, the wide range of temperature 
tolerances of Oregon chub, and the diversity of habitats occupied by 
the species. To the extent the effects of climate change manifest on 
the landscape, these impacts are, and will continue to be, 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 Oregon chub now, nor will they in 
the foreseeable future.
Cumulative Impacts
    Some of the factors discussed in this 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, dam operations, 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, extent, or permutations of cumulative impacts are 
difficult to assess, the current status of Oregon chub indicates that 
no such synergies drive population declines now or have the potential 
to in the future, and the post-delisting monitoring plan is designed to 
detect such declines if they occur. As discussed below, the agencies 
and nongovernmental organizations that manage multiple populations 
agreed to cooperate on the implementation of the post-delisting 
monitoring plan, which will guide the monitoring and, should population 
declines occur, necessary research and conservation actions. The best 
scientific and commercial data available indicate that Oregon chub is 
genetically diverse, abundant, and well-distributed throughout its 
historical range and that the factors are not currently, or anticipated 
to, cumulatively cause declines in Oregon chub populations or its 
habitat.
Overall Summary of Factors Affecting Oregon Chub
    The primary factors that threatened 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' listing under the Act have been removed or ameliorated by 
the actions of multiple conservation partners over the last 20 years. 
The introduction of 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 
instream flows and ongoing flushing flows from Willamette Project dams 
that sustain floodplain habitat downstream reduced the risk of habitat 
loss due to altered flows. The acquisition of floodplain habitat for 
long-term conservation and restoration provided assurance that 
management of floodplain habitat for the species will continue into the 
foreseeable future.
    Many factors still exist that may affect Oregon chub populations; 
however, most of these factors were isolated incidents, and the 
magnitude of their effects were not 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 to threatened, and has exceeded the goals of our recovery 
criteria for delisting. When the species was listed in 1993, only nine 
populations of Oregon chub within a small, restricted range were known 
to occur. Oregon chub populations now exist in 77 diverse habitats 
across multiple subbasins. Listing the species under the Act resulted 
in the implementation of focused recovery actions that 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 into the future, as 
described above. Based on this assessment of factors potentially 
impacting the species, we consider Oregon chub to face no

[[Page 9148]]

substantial threats, now or into the foreseeable future.

Determination

    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 Oregon chub and its habitat. 
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 find that Oregon chub populations are well-distributed among 
several subbasins and that many large, stable, or increasing 
populations exist that show 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 
foreseeable future. We conclude that the previously recognized impacts 
to Oregon chub from the present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range (specifically, 
operation of the USACE's Willamette Project dams, sedimentation from 
timber harvest and floods, water quality issues, succession, and 
effects of climate change (Factor A); predation by nonnative species 
(Factor C); and interspecific competition with nonnative species, and 
isolation from genetic exchange (Factor E)), do not rise to a level of 
significance such that the species is in danger of extinction 
throughout all of its range now or in the foreseeable future.

Significant Portion of the Range Analysis

    Having determined that the Oregon chub throughout all its range, is 
not endangered or threatened throughout all of its range, we next 
consider whether there are any significant portions of its range in 
which the Oregon chub is in danger of extinction or likely to become 
so. Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act defines 
``endangered species'' as any species which is ``in danger of 
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range,'' and 
``threatened species'' as any species which is ``likely to become an 
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range.'' We published a final policy 
interpreting the phrase ``Significant Portion of its Range'' (SPR) (79 
FR 37578; July 1, 2014). The final policy states that (1) if a species 
is found to be endangered or threatened throughout a significant 
portion of its range, the entire species is listed as endangered or 
threatened, respectively, and the Act's protections apply to all 
individuals of the species wherever found; (2) a portion of the range 
of a species is ``significant'' if the species is not currently 
endangered or threatened throughout all of its range, but the portion's 
contribution to the viability of the species is so important that, 
without the members in that portion, the species would be in danger of 
extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, 
throughout all of its range; (3) the range of a species is considered 
to be the general geographical area within which that species can be 
found at the time the Service or NMFS makes any particular status 
determination; and (4) if a vertebrate species is endangered or 
threatened throughout an SPR, and the population in that significant 
portion is a valid Distinct Population Segment (DPS), we will list the 
DPS rather than the entire taxonomic species or subspecies.
    The procedure for analyzing whether any portion is an SPR is 
similar, regardless of the type of status determination we are making. 
The first step in our analysis of the status of a species is to 
determine its status throughout all of its range. If we determine that 
the species is in danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the 
foreseeable future, throughout all of its range, we list the species as 
an endangered species (or threatened species) and no SPR analysis will 
be required. If the species is neither in danger of extinction nor 
likely to become so throughout all of its range, we next determine 
whether the species is in danger of extinction or likely to become so 
throughout a significant portion of its range. If it is, we list the 
species as an endangered species or threatened species, respectively; 
if it is not, we conclude that listing the species is not warranted.
    When we conduct an SPR analysis, we first identify any portions of 
the species' range that warrant further consideration. The range of a 
species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite 
number of ways. 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

[[Page 9149]]

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 affecting it uniformly throughout its range, no portion is likely 
to have a greater risk of extinction, and thus would not warrant 
further consideration. Moreover, if any concentration of threats apply 
only to portions of the range that clearly do not meet the biologically 
based definition of ``significant'' (i.e., the loss of that portion 
clearly would not be expected to increase the vulnerability to 
extinction of the entire species), those portions would not warrant 
further consideration.
    We considered whether any portions of 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. The geographic range of 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 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 and the populations of the species within the subbasins are not 
in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable 
future due to lack of significant threats, no portion of the range 
warrants further consideration to determine if it is significant. 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 
endangered or threatened.

Summary

    We carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial data 
available and determined that the Oregon chub is no longer in danger of 
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, nor is 
it likely to become so within the foreseeable future. We conclude 
Oregon chub no longer requires the protection of the Act, and, 
therefore, we are removing it from the Federal List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife.

Future Conservation Measures

    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. The purpose of this 
post-delisting monitoring (PDM) is to verify that a species remains 
secure from risk of extinction after the protections of the Act are 
removed, 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.

Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan Overview

    The Service developed a final PDM plan in cooperation with the 
ODFW. In addition, the USACE, USFS, Oregon Parks and Recreation 
Department, McKenzie River Trust, and Willamette Valley National 
Wildlife Refuge Complex agreed to cooperate with us in the 
implementation of the PDM plan. The PDM plan is designed to verify that 
the Oregon chub remains secure from the risk of extinction after 
removal from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife by 
detecting changes in its status and habitat throughout its known range. 
The final PDM plan consists of: (1) A summary of the species' status at 
the time of 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 effort.
    The final PDM plan will monitor Oregon chub populations following 
the same sampling protocol used by the 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 in 2015. Both 
Willamette Project biological opinions continue until 2023, and flow 
and temperature augmentation will be implemented during this period 
(Service 2008b, pp. 68-72; NMFS 2008, pp. 2-43 to 2-52, 2-125 to 2-
128). Monitoring through this time period will allow us to address any 
possible negative effects to Oregon chub associated with changes to 
flow and temperatures. As funding allows, we will collect data on 
roughly 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, 
enabling the Service and PDM partners to recommend flow and temperature 
regimes that are beneficial to native fishes in to the future. Sites 
outside the floodplain study will be sampled only once during each 3-
year cycle, thus reducing annual sampling costs from current levels.
    The final PDM plan identifies measurable management thresholds and 
responses for detecting and reacting to significant changes in Oregon 
chub protected habitat, distribution, and persistence. If monitoring 
detects declines 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. Such investigation will determine if Oregon chub 
warrants expanded monitoring, additional research, additional habitat 
protection, or relisting as an endangered or a threatened species under 
the Act. If relisting 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.
    We will post the final PDM plan and any future revisions on our 
national Web site (https://endangered.fws.gov) and on the Oregon Fish 
and Wildlife Office's Web site (https://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/).

Effects of the Rule

    This final rule revises 50 CFR 17.11(h) by removing Oregon chub 
from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. As such, 
as of the effective date of this rule (see DATES), the prohibitions and 
conservation measures provided by the Act, particularly through 
sections 7 and 9, no longer apply to this species (including

[[Page 9150]]

those contained in the existing conservation agreement, all safe harbor 
agreements, and all biological opinions for this species). There are no 
habitat conservation plans related to Oregon chub. Removal of Oregon 
chub from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 
relieves Federal agencies from the need to consult with us under 
section 7 of the Act to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or 
carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of this 
species. This final rule also revises 50 CFR 17.95(e) by removing the 
designated critical habitat for Oregon chub throughout its range.

Required Determinations

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 https://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 rule are staff members of the Service's 
Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office with assistance from ODFW staff (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.

Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

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


Sec.  17.11  [Amended]

0
2. Amend Sec.  17.11(h) by removing the entry for ``Chub, Oregon'' 
under FISHES in the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.


Sec.  17.95  [Amended]

0
3. Amend Sec.  17.95(e) by removing the entry for ``Oregon Chub 
(Oregonichthys crameri)''.

    Dated: December 16, 2014.
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-02951 Filed 2-18-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P