9126 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Executive Summary definition of an endangered or This document contains: (1) A final threatened species under the Act. This Fish and Wildlife Service rule to remove the Oregon chub from final rule removes the Oregon chub from the Federal List of Endangered and the Federal List of Endangered and 50 CFR Part 17 Threatened Wildlife, and (2) a notice of Threatened Wildlife. This rule also availability of a final post-delisting removes the currently designated [Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2014–0002; critical habitat for the Oregon chub FXES11130900000C6–156–FF09E42000] monitoring plan. Species addressed—The Oregon chub throughout its range. Basis for the Regulatory Action— RIN 1018–BA28 (Oregonichthys crameri) is endemic to Under the Act, a species may be the Willamette River drainage of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife determined to be an endangered species western Oregon. Extensive human and Plants; Removing the Oregon or threatened species because of any of activities in the Willamette River Basin Chub From the Federal List of five factors: (A) The present or (e.g., dams, levees, and other human Endangered and Threatened Wildlife threatened destruction, modification, or development within the floodplain) curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) have substantially reduced the amount AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, overutilization for commercial, and suitability of habitat for this Interior. recreational, scientific, or educational species. Improved floodplain ACTION: Final rule. purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) management and floodplain restoration the inadequacy of existing regulatory SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and by multiple conservation partners has mechanisms; or (E) other natural or Wildlife Service (Service), are removing reduced and mitigated adverse human- manmade factors affecting its continued the Oregon chub (Oregonichthys related impacts and resulted in existence. We must consider the same crameri) from the Federal List of significant improvements to habitat factors in delisting a species. We may Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. quality and quantity. As a result, threats delist a species if the best scientific and This determination is based on a to the Oregon chub have been largely commercial data indicate the species is thorough review of the best available ameliorated. neither endangered nor threatened for scientific and commercial information, The status of the species has one or more of the following reasons: (1) which indicates that the Oregon chub improved dramatically due to the The species is extinct; (2) the species has recovered and no longer meets the discovery of many new populations and has recovered and is no longer definition of an endangered species or a successful reintroductions within the threatened or endangered; or (3) the threatened species under the species’ historical range. At the time of original scientific data used at the time Endangered Species Act of 1973, as listing in 1993 (58 FR 53800, October the species was classified were in error. amended (Act). Our review of the status 18, 1993), only nine known populations Threats to the Oregon chub at the time of this species shows that the threats to of Oregon chub existed, and few of listing in 1993, included loss of this species have been eliminated or estimates existed of the number of habitat, water quality, and competition reduced and populations are stable so individuals within each population. The with and predation by nonnative fishes. that the species is not currently, and is locations of these populations We reviewed all available scientific and not likely to again become, a threatened represented a small fraction (estimated commercial information pertaining to species within the foreseeable future in as 2 percent based on stream miles) of the five threat factors in our status all or a significant portion of its range. the species’ formerly extensive review of the Oregon chub, and the This rule also removes the currently distribution within the Willamette River results are summarized below. designated critical habitat for the drainage. In 2013, 77 populations were • We consider the Oregon chub to be Oregon chub throughout its range. known to exist throughout the ‘‘recovered’’ because all substantial DATES: This rule is effective on March Willamette River drainage. The risk of threats to this fish have been 23, 2015. extinction is substantially reduced as ameliorated and the species is now threats have been ameliorated and new abundant and well-distributed ADDRESSES: This final rule and the post- populations have been discovered or throughout much of its presumed delisting monitoring plan are available established. on the Internet at http:// historical range. Purpose of the Regulatory Action— • All remaining potential threats to www.regulations.gov at Docket Number Under the Endangered Species Act of the species and its habitat, with the FWS–R1–ES–2014–0002. Comments 1973, we may be petitioned to list, exception of effects related to climate and materials received, as well as delist, or reclassify a species. In 2010, change, have been ameliorated, and supporting documentation used in the we reclassified the Oregon chub from many populations exist on public lands preparation of this rule, will be endangered to threatened (75 FR 21179, managed for fish and wildlife available for public inspection, by April 23, 2010), based on defined conservation. appointment, during normal business criteria in the species recovery plan. In • We do not consider effects related hours, at the Service’s Oregon Fish and 2014, we proposed to remove the to climate change to be a substantial Wildlife Office, 2600 SE 98th Avenue, Oregon chub from the Federal List of threat to the species at this time, and we Portland, OR 97266. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife do not expect climate change effects to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul (79 FR 7136, February 6, 2014), based rise to the magnitude or severity such Henson, State Supervisor, Oregon Fish on delisting criteria in the recovery plan that the species will be likely to become and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES); and a five factor threats analysis. an endangered species within the telephone 503–231–6179; or facsimile Threats to this species have been largely foreseeable future. While we recognize (fax) 503–231–6195. Persons who use a ameliorated, with the exception of the that climate change effects such as telecommunications device for the deaf effects of climate change, and we do not rising air temperatures, reduced (TDD) may call the Federal Information consider such effects to be a substantial snowpack, and increased drought may Relay Services (FIRS) at 800–877–8339 threat to the species at this time. have potential effects to the Oregon for assistance. Therefore, we have determined that the chub and its habitat, the best available SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Oregon chub no longer meets the information does not indicate that such

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:51 Feb 18, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19FER3.SGM 19FER3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 9127

effects will significantly impact the (Castor canadensis) ponds, oxbows, side Extensive human activities in the Oregon chub or its habitat. We expect channels, backwater sloughs, low- Willamette River Basin have that the Oregon chub’s susceptibility to gradient tributaries, and flooded substantially reduced the floodplain climate change effects is low given the marshes. These habitats usually have habitats and altered water temperatures, wide range of temperature tolerances of little or no water flow, are dominated by as well as the timing, duration, and Oregon chub, the range and diversity of silty and organic substrate, and contain magnitude of floods in the basin. In the habitats occupied by the species, and considerable aquatic vegetation 1950s and 1960s, the U.S. Army Corps because effects of climate change will be providing cover for hiding and of Engineers (USACE) constructed 13 ameliorated by multiple storage dams in spawning (Pearsons 1989, p. 27; Markle large dams on many of the tributaries of the Willamette River Basin. et al. 1991, p. 289; Scheerer and • the Willamette River, with the primary We find that delisting the Oregon McDonald 2000, p. 1). The average purpose of flood risk reduction. Though chub is warranted and thus we are depth of habitat used by the Oregon the Willamette River mainstem and removing this taxon from the Federal chub is less than 1.8 meters (m) (6 feet some tributaries remain undammed, List of Endangered and Threatened (ft)), and summer water temperatures miles of levees have also been Wildlife. typically exceed 16 degrees Celsius (61 • We prepared a final post-delisting constructed to further increase degrees Fahrenheit). Adult Oregon chub agricultural and urban use of these monitoring plan to monitor the Oregon seek dense vegetation for cover and former floodplain areas. chub after delisting to verify that the frequently travel in the mid-water species remains secure. column in beaver channels or along the At the time of listing in 1993 (58 FR 53800, October 18, 1993), only nine Previous Federal Actions margins of aquatic plant beds. Larval Oregon chub congregate in shallow known populations of Oregon chub Please refer to the proposed rule to near-shore areas in the upper layers of existed, and few estimates existed of the remove the Oregon chub from the the water column, whereas juveniles number of individuals within each Federal List of Endangered and venture farther from shore into deeper population. The locations of these Threatened Wildlife (79 FR 7136, areas of the water column (Pearsons populations represented a small fraction February 6, 2014) for a detailed 1989, p. 16). In the winter months, (estimated as 2 percent based on stream description of previous Federal actions Oregon chub are found buried in the miles) of the species’ formerly extensive concerning this species. This document detritus or concealed in aquatic distribution within the Willamette River is our final rule to remove the Oregon vegetation (Pearsons 1989, p. 16). Fish drainage. chub from the Federal List of of similar size school and feed together. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Abundance and Distribution—Since In the early spring, Oregon chub are we listed the Oregon chub as most active in the warmer, shallow Background endangered in 1993, the status of the areas of aquatic habitats. This is a final rule to remove the The Oregon chub is an obligatory species improved dramatically due to Oregon chub from the Federal List of sight feeder (Davis and Miller 1967, the discovery of many new populations Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. It p. 32). It feeds throughout the day and and successful reintroductions within is our intent to discuss in this final rule stops feeding after dusk (Pearsons 1989, the species’ historical range (Scheerer only those topics directly relevant to the p. 23). The Oregon chub feeds mostly on 2007, p. 97). Recently, since we removal of the Oregon chub from the water column fauna. The diet of Oregon reclassified the Oregon chub to Federal List of Endangered and chub adults collected in a May sample threatened status in 2010 (75 FR 21179, Threatened Wildlife. consisted primarily of minute April 23, 2010), a substantial number of Species Information crustaceans including copepods, new Oregon chub populations were discovered (34 populations) and The following section contains cladocerans, and chironomid larvae (Markle et al. 1991, p. 288). The diet of established through introductions (8 information updated from that populations). In 2013, the Oregon presented in the proposed rule to juvenile Oregon chub also consisted of minute organisms such as rotifers and Department of Fish and Wildlife remove Oregon chub from the Federal (ODFW) confirmed the existence of List of Endangered and Threatened cladocerans (Pearsons 1989, p. 2). Oregon chub at 77 locations in the Wildlife, which published in the Range—The Oregon chub is endemic Molalla River, Luckiamute River, North Federal Register on February 6, 2014 to the Willamette River drainage of and South Santiam River, McKenzie (79 FR 7136). A thorough discussion of western Oregon. Historical records show River, Middle Fork and Coast Fork the species’ description, population the Oregon chub existed as far density, and abundance is also found in downstream as Oregon City and as far Willamette Rivers, and several the proposed rule. upstream as the town of Oakridge. tributaries to the mainstem Willamette Species Description and Life Historically a dynamic, alluvial river, River downstream of the Coast Fork and History—The Oregon chub is a small the Willamette and its tributaries Middle Fork Willamette River minnow in the Cyprinid family. Young created broad floodplains and braided confluence (Bangs et al. 2012, pp. 7–9), of the year range in length from 7 to 32 reaches with many side channels, including 56 naturally occurring and 21 millimeters (mm) (0.3 to 1.3 inches (in)), sloughs, and other similar slack-water introduced populations. In 2013, the and adults grow up to 90 mm (3.5 in) habitats that support the Oregon chub. estimated abundance of 41 Oregon chub in length (Pearsons 1989, p. 17). The The Willamette is typical of river populations was greater than 500 fish Oregon chub reaches maturity at about systems on the west side of the Cascade each, and 23 of these populations 2 years of age (Scheerer and McDonald Mountains, with the largest river flows/ exhibited a stable or increasing trend 2003, p. 78) and in wild populations can floods influenced by heavy rain, or rain- over the last 7 years (Bangs et al. 2013, live up to 9 years. Oregon chub spawn on-snow events during the late winter p. 1). The current status of Oregon chub from May through August and are not and spring. Snowmelt in the spring populations meets the goals of the known to spawn more than once a year. typically produces an elongated flow species recovery plan for delisting. The The Oregon chub live in slack water peak in the spring, with decreasing distribution of these sites is shown in off-channel habitats such as beaver flows throughout summer. Table 1.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:51 Feb 18, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19FER3.SGM 19FER3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES 9128 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 1—DISTRIBUTION OF OREGON CHUB POPULATIONS MEETING RECOVERY CRITERIA FOR DELISTING [Bangs et al. 2013, pp. 5–8]

Number of large Number of large Total estimated Recovery subbasin Number of populations populations with abundance in populations ≥ stable/increasing ( 500 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 Hills Creek Pond populations. While individuals in 2009 (Scheerer et al. Oregon chub remain relatively stable substantial, these fluctuations 2005, p. 2). from year to year, we observed commonly occur, and appear natural A major component of recovery efforts substantial fluctuations in abundance and cyclical. For example, we estimated for the Oregon chub was introducing the within populations. For instance, the the population abundance at the Dexter species into hydrologically isolated largest known population at Ankeny Reservoir Alcove ‘‘PIT1’’ site at 140 in habitats that are free from nonnative fish National Wildlife Refuge was 21,790 1995. Although annual estimated species. Twenty-one new populations Oregon chub individuals in 2010, and abundance fluctuated, this population were established since 1988 (Table 2). In increased to 96,810 in 2011. The reached 1,440 estimated individuals in 2013, 14 introduced populations existed population then declined from 82,800 to 2000. The population then declined to with more than 500 Oregon chub each; 47,920 between 2012 and 2013. We 70 individuals in 2004, and then 6 of these populations exhibited a stable observed similar substantial fluctuations increased again to reach 1,370 estimated or increasing 7-year abundance trend in 2013, at the Dunn Wetland and at the (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 The findings suggest that four cyprinids). In addition, the levels of Abernathy Fish Technology Center genetically distinct groups of the Oregon genetic diversity for Oregon chub were conducted a genetic analysis on the chub exist, corresponding to the four similar to the creek chub Semotilus Oregon chub in 2010 (DeHaan et al. subbasins of the Willamette River. atromaculatus, a widespread and 2010, 2012, entire). The analysis Levels of genetic diversity were high abundant species of minnow (DeHaan examined genetic diversity at 10 across the range of the species and equal 2012, pp. 548–549). Despite fluctuations microsatellite loci within and among 20 to, or greater than, other threatened or in population abundance of Oregon natural and 4 introduced populations. endangered species of minnows (i.e., chub, genetic diversity remained stable

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:51 Feb 18, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19FER3.SGM 19FER3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 9129

over a 7- to 8-year interval (three to four that the determination be made ‘‘solely finalized. The new information may Oregon chub generations). Two on the basis of the best scientific and change the extent to which criteria need populations of the 24 evaluated had commercial data available.’’ Therefore, to be met for recognizing recovery of the reduced genetic diversity: A recent recovery criteria should help indicate species. Recovery of a species is a bottleneck was observed in the when we would anticipate that an dynamic process requiring adaptive Shetzline population, and the Geren analysis of the five threat factors under management that may, or may not, fully Island population showed evidence of section 4(a)(1) would result in a follow the guidance provided in a decreasing diversity, possibly due to determination that the species is no recovery plan. reductions in the population size from longer an endangered species or Recovery Planning—The Oregon Chub 8,660 to 360 fish between 1997 and threatened species because of any of the Working Group, which was formed 2000 (Bangs et al. 2012, p. 109). five statutory factors (see Summary of prior to listing the species, is a proactive Currently, both populations are Factors Affecting the Species). force in improving the conservation abundant and exhibit an increasing While recovery plans provide status of the Oregon chub. This group of trend in population growth over the last important guidance to the Service, Federal and State agency biologists, 7 years (Bangs et al. 2013, pp. 7–8). States, and other partners on methods of academicians, land managers, and The genetic assessment (DeHaan et al. minimizing threats to listed species and others has met each year since 1991, to 2010, p. 18; DeHaan et al. 2012, p. 545) measurable objectives against which to share information on the status of the shows that the current Oregon chub measure progress towards recovery, they Oregon chub, results of new research, translocation guidelines (ODFW 2006, are not regulatory documents and and ongoing threats to the species. entire) (which require the donor cannot substitute for the determinations Additionally, an interagency population from within same subbasin, and promulgation of regulations conservation agreement was established and a minimum of 500 Oregon chub required under section 4(a)(1) of the for the Oregon chub in 1992 (ODFW et introduced) are effective in establishing Act. A decision to revise the status of or al. 1992). The objectives of the genetically viable populations. Levels of remove a species from the Federal List agreement were to: (1) Establish a task genetic diversity were similar to natural of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife force drawn from participating agencies populations in three out of four of the (50 CFR 17.11) is ultimately based on an to oversee and coordinate Oregon chub introduced sites studied. Introduced analysis of the best scientific and conservation and management actions; populations from multiple sources had commercial data then available to (2) protect existing populations; (3) increased diversity and showed determine whether a species is no establish new populations; and (4) foster evidence of interbreeding. The Dunn longer an endangered species or a greater public understanding of the wetland population, which had three threatened species, regardless of species, its status, and the factors that donor populations, had the highest whether that information differs from influence it (ODFW et al. 1992, pp. 3– genetic diversity of all sites (natural and the recovery plan. 5). These objectives are similar to that introduced). The Wicopee Pond Recovery plans may be revised to of the subsequently developed recovery population had relatively low levels of address continuing or new threats to the plan. genetic diversity, which was likely species, as new, substantive information The Recovery Plan for the Oregon because this population was founded becomes available. The recovery plan Chub was approved by the Service on with only 50 Oregon chub originating identifies site-specific management September 3, 1998 (Service 1998). The from 1 source population. These data actions that will achieve recovery of the recovery plan outlines recovery criteria support introducing greater numbers of species, measurable criteria that set a to assist in determining when the individuals and using multiple sources trigger for review of the species’ status, Oregon chub has recovered to the point from within a subbasin. and methods for monitoring recovery that the protections afforded by the Act progress. Recovery plans are intended to are no longer needed. These delisting Recovery and Recovery Plan establish goals for long-term criteria are: (1) 20 populations of at least Implementation conservation of listed species and define 500 individuals each are established Background—Section 4(f) of the Act criteria that are designed to indicate and maintained; (2) all of these (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) directs us to when the substantial threats facing a populations must exhibit a stable or develop and implement recovery plans species have been removed or reduced increasing trend for 7 years; (3) at least for the conservation and survival of to such an extent that the species may 4 populations (meeting criteria 1 and 2) endangered and threatened species no longer need the protections of the must be located in each of the 3 unless we determine that such a plan Act. subbasins (Mainstem Willamette, will not promote the conservation of the There are many paths to Middle Fork Willamette, and Santiam species. Under section 4(f)(1)(B)(ii), accomplishing recovery of a species, Rivers); and (4) management of these 20 recovery plans must, to the maximum and recovery may be achieved without populations must be guaranteed in extent practicable, include: ‘‘Objective, all criteria being fully met. For example, perpetuity (Service 1998, pp. 27–28). measurable criteria which, when met, one or more criteria may be exceeded Recovery Plan Implementation—The would result in a determination, in while other criteria may not yet be status of the Oregon chub has improved accordance with the provisions of accomplished. In that instance, we may dramatically since it was listed as [section 4 of the Act], that the species determine that the threats are endangered. The improvement is due be removed from the list.’’ However, minimized sufficiently and the species largely to the implementation of actions revisions to the list (adding, removing, is robust enough to delist. In other identified in the interagency or reclassifying a species) must reflect cases, recovery opportunities may be conservation agreement and the Oregon determinations made in accordance discovered that were not known when chub recovery plan. These actions with sections 4(a)(1) and 4(b) of the Act. the recovery plan was finalized. These include the establishment of additional Section 4(a)(1) requires that the opportunities may be used instead of populations via successful introductions Secretary determine whether a species methods identified in the recovery plan. within the species’ historical range and is endangered or threatened (or not) Likewise, information on the species the discovery of many new populations because of one or more of five threat may be discovered that was not known as a result of the ODFW’s surveys of the factors. Section 4(b) of the Act requires at the time the recovery plan was basin (Scheerer 2007, p. 97). Over 20

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:51 Feb 18, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19FER3.SGM 19FER3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES 9130 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

years have passed since the species was with abundant populations of the delisting monitoring plan from three listed, and it is now abundant and well- Oregon chub are on land that is knowledgeable independent individuals distributed throughout much of its privately owned, either where with scientific expertise that included presumed historical range. Currently, landowners have signed conservation familiarity with Oregon chub and its there are 77 Oregon chub populations, agreements or are enrolled in our Safe habitat, biological needs, recovery of which 41 have more than 500 adults Harbor Program. Three additional sites efforts, and threats. We received (Bangs et al. 2013, pp. 5–11). The risk are on land that is in a permanent responses from all three peer reviewers. of extinction is substantially reduced as easement or ownership by the McKenzie Issues and information provided by the threats have been ameliorated and new River Trust, a land trust dedicated to peer reviewers are summarized in the populations have been discovered or conservation of wetland and riparian Peer Reviewer Comments section, and established. The following criteria for habitat. where they overlap with similar issues delisting the Oregon chub are met or Based on our review of the Oregon identified by the public, they are exceeded as described in the recovery chub recovery plan, we conclude that included in the Public Comments plan: the status of the species has improved section. Delisting Criterion 1: 20 populations due to implementation of recovery of at least 500 individuals are activities and the objectives of the Peer Reviewer Comments established and maintained. This recovery plan have been met. Our Comment (1): Two peer reviewers criterion was exceeded; in 2013, we analysis of whether the species has suggested that the lower bounds of the identified 41 populations with more achieved recovery and thus no longer confidence intervals should be used to than 500 adult Oregon chub (see Table requires the protections of the Act determine the number of populations 1, above). because it is no longer an endangered or meeting Delisting Criterion #1. Delisting Criterion 2: All of these threatened species is based on the five Our response: The species’ recovery populations (20) must exhibit a stable or statutory threat factors identified in plan does not define the method to increasing trend for 7 years. This section 4 of the Act, and discussed determine population size for Delisting criterion was met. Currently, 23 below in the Summary of Factors Criterion #1. The ODFW uses a single- populations of at least 500 individuals Affecting the Species. sample mark-recapture model, also exhibit a stable or increasing trend for called an adjusted Petersen estimate, to 7 years (see Table 1, above). Summary of Comments and estimate population abundance (Bangs Delisting Criterion 3: At least four Recommendations et al. 2013, p. 5). This method is populations (meeting criteria 1 and 2) In the proposed rule published supported in the literature (Seber 1973, must be located in each of the three February 6, 2014 (79 FR 7136), we pp. 59–60, Ricker 1975, pp. 75–79), and subbasins (Mainstem Willamette, requested that all interested parties demonstrates reliable estimates for Middle Fork, and Santiam Rivers). This submit written comments on the sampling conditions similar to what criterion was exceeded in all three proposal by April 7, 2014. We also ODFW experiences monitoring Oregon subbasins. Six populations in the contacted appropriate Federal and State chub. The ODFW also demonstrates the Mainstem Willamette River subbasin, 10 agencies, scientific experts and reliability in its population abundance populations in the Middle Fork organizations, and other interested estimates by providing a 95 percent Willamette River subbasin, and 7 parties and invited them to comment on confidence interval (Bangs et al. 2013, populations in the Santiam River the proposal. The Service hosted a pp. 9–12). The calculation of the subbasin meet the first 3 delisting media event with local and national confidence interval is highly influenced criteria (see Table 1, above). news coverage announcing the proposed by the sample size; a narrower interval Delisting Criterion 4: Management of rule on February 4, 2014. We did not requires sampling more individuals these 20 populations must be receive any requests for a public (Seber 1973, p. 61). Thus, in small guaranteed in perpetuity. The level of hearing. populations, greater sampling effort management protection recommended During the comment period for the would be required to demonstrate if a in the Oregon chub recovery plan (i.e., proposed rule, we received five population met Delisting Criterion #1 if management guaranteed into perpetuity) comment letters (three from peer the lower bound was used, thus exceeds the requirements of the Act in reviewers, one from the ODFW, and one exposing more individuals to the risk of evaluating whether a species meets the from the public) directly addressing the trapping or handling mortality. We do statutory definition of endangered or proposed removal of the Oregon chub not agree with the reviewer’s suggestion threatened, as adequate protection for from the Federal List of Endangered and to use the lower bound of the 95 percent the species in the long term may be Threatened Wildlife. All substantive confidence interval, as this method provided otherwise. Although we do not information provided during the exposes individuals in small have guarantees that all of the comment period is either incorporated populations to greater risk of mortality populations will be managed into directly into this final determination or than the method used by the ODFW. perpetuity, we have a high level of is addressed below. The following Comment (2): One peer reviewer confidence that management of the section summarizes issues and asked why the Coast Fork Willamette Oregon chub sites will continue to information we consider to be Oregon chub populations were not provide adequate protection for the substantive from peer review and public mentioned under Delisting Criterion #3. species in the long term, as further comments, and provides our responses. Our response: Under the recovery discussed below. Of the 41 sites with plan for Oregon chub, the Coast Fork populations of more than 500 Oregon Peer Review Willamette was not included in the chub, 28 of the sites are in public or In accordance with our policy, Mainstem, Santiam, or Middle Fork Tribal ownership, with either active ‘‘Notice of Interagency Cooperative Willamette recovery areas. The recovery conservation management programs, or Policy for Peer Review in Endangered plan states: ‘‘Although a single small practices where land managers consider Species Act Activities,’’ which was population of Oregon chub currently the needs of the Oregon chub when published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR occurs in a fourth subbasin, the Coast implementing site management 34270), we solicited expert opinion on Fork, recovery efforts will not focus on activities. Additionally, eight of the sites the proposed rule and the draft post- this subbasin because surveys have not

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:51 Feb 18, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19FER3.SGM 19FER3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 9131

revealed any other suitable habitats, and next generation, and can be used to demonstrate Oregon chub are not nonnative fish are very common.’’ determine the impacts of inbreeding and threatened by low genetic diversity. We Although we are encouraged that two limited genetic diversity during the conclude that the recovery criterion additional, small populations of Oregon analysis of the minimum viable abundance threshold of 500 adult fish chub were discovered and two population. The recovery criteria in the per population is adequate, and introduced populations were recovery plan (Service 1998) do not analyzing the effective population size established in the Coast Fork subbasin, require measuring effective population or determining the minimum viable recovery criteria were met without the sizes for Oregon chub. At the time the population is not required in order to inclusion of the populations in this recovery plan was written, the Service assess the status of the species. subbasin. used the best available science to set the Comment (5): One commenter stated Comment (3): One peer reviewer recovery criterion abundance threshold that the Service was not conservative in asked that the Service provide a more at 500 adult fish per population. This the analysis of population size and must current summary of the 2009–2010 threshold is based on the total adult err on the side of caution. The reviewer Willamette Floodplain Report (Bangs et population size, not effective population commented that stochastic events and al. 2011a, entire). This peer reviewer size, and takes into account effects of small population sizes decreases the also suggested that the delisting rule limited genetic diversity and inbreeding population viability and increases the incorporate 2013 data. associated with small population size extinction risk of Oregon chub. The Our response: The Willamette and the risk associated with stochastic commenter further stated that the Floodplain Report, with analysis of data events. extreme annual variability within from 2009–2012, is currently in Jamieson and Allendorf (2012, p. 583) individual Oregon chub population preparation by the ODFW, and is suggested that, at a minimum, an sizes suggests considerable risk of expected to be available late spring 2015 effective population size of 500 extinction, even in locally abundant at the earliest. As such, we are using the individuals is needed for conservation populations. The commenter mentioned best available information at this time. of endangered species, including the that in addition, population growth is We agree with the second part of this potential impacts of stochastic events on impacted by demographic stochasticity. comment, and updated the rule to conservation genetics. Jamieson and Our response: We disagree. The Act include the 2013 data. Allendorf (2012, p. 580) suggested an does not require that we ‘‘err on the side of caution’’ in determining the status of Public Comments effective population size of 500 individuals is the total for all a species; it requires that we determine, Comment (4): One commenter stated populations of a species, and not the based on the best available scientific that the Service did not adequately size of individual populations. The total information, whether a species meets consider effective population size in the Oregon chub population size in 2013 the definition of endangered or of decision to delist the Oregon chub. The was approximately 160,000 adult fish threatened. The Willamette River commenter stated that the general rule (Bangs et al. 2013, pp. 6–9). floodplain where Oregon chub evolved for short-term (50) and long-term (500) DeHaan (2012, p. 543) determined has always been highly dynamic. effective population size is not effective population size for three Oregon chub are extremely well adapted appropriate, as an effective population isolated Oregon chub populations as to surviving stochastic events. For size of 500 individuals does not part of a genetic analysis of the species. instance, Oregon chub habitats have sufficiently reduce extinction risk. The While these isolated populations been known to freeze each winter, commenter stated that determining a represent a worst-case scenario for experience high magnitude flood flows minimum viable population based on negative genetic effects, the study in the spring, and reach in excess of 25 effective population size should include suggested: (1) There was no immediate degrees Celsius (77 degrees Fahrenheit) additional factors, such as threat from inbreeding or genetic drift, in the summer, yet Oregon chub environmental and demographic and (2) many Oregon chub populations survive. Oregon chub are now well- stochasticity, spatial dispersion, have some degree of connectivity to distributed throughout their historical overlapping generations, and synergistic other populations. This study also range in a variety of habitats, which interactions among the risk factors. As determined that genetic diversity reduces the risk of effects of severe an example, the commenter mentioned remains high and stable over time, stochastic events to the species that the largest population of Oregon despite fluctuations in individual throughout its range. Each habitat is chub in the Middle Fork Willamette population size. Further, the ODFW impacted by stochastic effects in subbasin is in Hills Creek Pond; the (Bangs et al. 2013, p. 17) documented different ways. For example, while population abundance was estimated at movement of individual Oregon chub populations in shallow water habitats 13,460 individuals in 2012. The between populations, which provides a with high solar exposure may be commenter noted that this was the total mechanism for genetic exchange impacted by severe hot and dry weather population size and not the effective between populations that will maintain that raises temperatures to unsuitable population size, and was too small to genetic variation (DeHaan 2012, p. 543). levels for chub, populations in habitats assure viability. Despite the recent genetic analysis that are deep and well-shaded may Our response: The minimum viable (DeHaan 2012, p. 543), the best available benefit by water warmed to the population is the smallest estimated information is not sufficient to preferred temperature range for the population size with a high probability determine a minimum viable population species. Oregon chub have been of long-term persistence. Minimum size for Oregon chub. documented in new, suitable habitat viable population factors in risks In our decision to delist the Oregon created by floodplain processes in the associated with demographic and chub, we are required to analyze the McKenzie River subbasin, and voluntary environmental stochastic events, and current or foreseeable threats to the movement of Oregon chub was the impacts of inbreeding and limited species to determine whether a species documented between populations in the genetic diversity. The effective meets the definition of endangered or of Middle Fork Willamette River (Bangs et population size is the number of threatened, based on the best available al. 2012, p. 19) and McKenzie River breeding individuals in the population scientific information. Our analysis subbasins (Bangs et al. 2013, p. 17). that contribute genetic material to the includes recent genetic data that These findings demonstrate the ability

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:51 Feb 18, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19FER3.SGM 19FER3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES 9132 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

of Oregon chub to colonize new nonnative species of concern Willamette River Basin, creating a habitats, resulting in exchange of (mosquitofish and largemouth bass). management action for nonnative fish or genetic material between established Our response: The best available data addressing vector control guidelines is populations, thus reducing the potential show no relationship between the outside the scope of this rule and the effects of stochastic events on small presence of nonnative fish and Oregon PDM plan. populations. chub population abundance trends Comment (7): Two peer reviewers and Further, for each ‘‘stable’’ population (Bangs et al. 2013, p. 17). Thirteen of the one public commenter discussed the (as defined in the recovery plan), we 23 populations that met delisting need to consider the effects of climate calculate the coefficient of variation for criteria with either a stable or increasing change, environmental stochasticity, the past 7 years. If the coefficient of abundance trend in 2013 occur with human population growth, and resulting variation is greater than one (in other nonnative fish; 1 of the 2 populations changes in water availability on the words, if the variation is greater than the that had a declining abundance trend viability and vulnerability of Oregon mean abundance), we consider the occurs with nonnative fish (Bangs et al. chub populations and suitable habitats. population ‘‘unstable’’ and do not 2013, p. 17). Nonnative fish that are Primary concerns included effects to consider that population to meet the thought to have the potential to impact Oregon chub from: Extreme climatic recovery criteria. The 20 populations in Oregon chub populations through variation (including drought effects, 2012, and 23 populations in 2013, that predation and competition include effects to instream flows, and increased met delisting criteria had either a largemouth bass, smallmouth bass reservoir drawdown); water temperature increases and reduced cool water ‘‘stable’’ or ‘‘increasing’’ abundance (Micropterus dolomieu), bluegill trend. This leads us to conclude that the refugia; the potential reduction in (Lepomis macrochirus), pumpkinseed variability in population abundance is habitat size and quality; habitat sunfish (Lepomis gibbosus), warmouth not a factor that will impact future fragmentation; and likely increases in (Lepomis gulosus), green sunfish survival of these populations, provided populations of predatory and competitor (Lepomis cyanellus), yellow perch the abundance criteria (500 adult fish) is nonnative fish species. (Perca flavescens), walleye (Sander met, because genetic diversity remains Our response: The Service reviews the vitreus), black crappie (Pomoxis high and stable over time, despite best scientific and commercial nigromaculatus), white crappie fluctuations in individual population information available when conducting (Pomoxis annularis), common carp size (DeHaan 2012, p. 543). Overall, a threats analysis. In considering what (Cyprinus carpio), brown bullhead trend analysis conducted since 1996 factors might constitute a threat we demonstrates that the Oregon chub (Ameiurus nebulosus), yellow bullhead must look beyond the mere exposure of populations are stable and that the (Ameiurus natalis), and western the species to the factor to determine concerns raised by the commenter are mosquitofish (Markle et al. 1991, p. 91). whether the exposure causes actual not affecting Oregon chub recovery and We agree that western mosquitofish are impacts to the species. The mere are not expected into the foreseeable potential predators on larval Oregon identification of factors that could future. chub, and we have included an analysis negatively impact a species is not Comment (6): One commenter and of their impact in this final rule. While sufficient to compel a finding that one peer reviewer suggested including a we acknowledge that some of these fish listing (or maintaining a currently listed better description of population trends species may represent a larger threat to species on the Federal Lists of for Oregon chub populations that are individual Oregon chub populations Endangered or Threatened Wildlife or coexisting with nonnative predators. than others, we maintain that Plants) is appropriate. We require One peer reviewer also suggested that monitoring should include all nonnative evidence that these factors are operative the Service discuss specific predators species. We determine in the five factor threats currently acting on the species to that may impact Oregon chub, instead of analysis (see Factors A, C, and E) that the point that the species meets the combining all nonnatives, specifically the threats of nonnative fish to the definition of endangered or of western mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) Oregon chub have been ameliorated; threatened under the Act. and largemouth bass (Micropterus thus, there is no existing or potential The Service acknowledges that salmoides). One peer reviewer suggested future significant threat that is environmental changes could occur over that the Service include western inadequately addressed through existing the next several decades due to both mosquitofish as a potential predator on regulatory mechanisms (see Factor D). climate change effects and human larval Oregon chub, and that we include Additionally, a regulatory mechanism is population growth. However, it is this species in the predation discussion. in place to prevent the translocation of difficult to: (1) Predict with any One commenter recommended that nonnative fish. Within the State of certainty how those changes may efforts to limit largemouth bass Oregon, it is unlawful to transport, influence Oregon chub populations and colonization should be discussed in the release, or attempt to release any live their habitats in the Willamette Valley, final rule to delist Oregon chub. The fish into the waters of this State (Oregon and (2) accurately describe and assess peer reviewer asked that the Service Administrative Rules (OAR) 635–007– the net effects when considering the explore alternative management of 0600). Abiotic factors such as water flow potential negative consequences mosquitoes by using native minnows through connected habitats and together with the potential positive instead of nonnative western variability in water temperature and consequences to Oregon chub mosquitofish. One commenter stated depth keep largemouth bass and populations. Additional information that the inadequacy of existing nonnative predators from becoming and explanation was added to this final regulatory mechanisms to prevent dominant in these habitats. Through the rule in the section on ‘‘Effects Related spread of western mosquitofish and PDM, the ODFW will continue to to Climate Change’’ (see Factor A). largemouth bass into connected monitor Oregon chub populations that Comment (8): One commenter stated watersheds was not adequately are thriving, despite the presence of that if Oregon chub are delisted, the analyzed, and should be discussed. nonnative fish, to better understand the terms and conditions required under the Additionally, one peer reviewer factors that allow this to occur. While Service’s biological opinion issued recommended that the post-delisting we support efforts to limit the under section 7 of the Act to the USACE monitoring (PDM) plan focus on specific proliferation of nonnative fish in the and other Federal agencies on the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:51 Feb 18, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19FER3.SGM 19FER3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 9133

continued operation and maintenance of the Clean Water Act (CWA; 33 U.S.C. construction, inundation, and operation dams in the Willamette River Basin will 1251 et seq.). While we acknowledge of the Willamette River Basin Flood no longer be required, thereby removing that consultation under section 7 of the Control Projects in the Willamette key protections for the Oregon chub. Act will no longer be required for Valley. Under the terms of the This commenter also expressed a Oregon chub, the Service will continue Agreement, the State of Oregon and the concern that delisting will eliminate to provide comments to the USACE on BPA agreed to acquire at least an consultation and agency review of individual section 404 permits in the additional 16,880 acres (ac) (6,831 actions permitted via the USACE permit Willamette Valley through our hectares (ha)) of wildlife mitigation program. authorities under the Fish and Wildlife property to protect 26,537 ac (10,739 ha) Our response: Since 2002, the USACE Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.). (or more) by the end of 2025. has implemented minimum dam The USACE routinely sends the Service Throughout the Willamette River Basin, outflow targets that sustain downstream individual permit applications for our floodplain properties have been, and floodplain habitat, which has reduced review, and we provide specific will continue to be, acquired. All habitat the threat of habitat loss for the Oregon comments and recommendations to acquisitions funded by the BPA must chub. These minimum flow targets will reduce negative effects to fish and include provisions for permanent continue to be required into the future, wildlife, including unlisted species. For protections and enforcement of those even after the Oregon chub is delisted, most section 404 projects, any potential protections. The acquisition of under existing biological opinions from negative impacts to habitat and species floodplain habitat for long-term the Service and National Marine are generally short-term. While in-water conservation and restoration through Fisheries Service (NMFS) on the work has the potential to impact these mechanisms provides assurances USACE’s Willamette Valley Project individual Oregon chub populations, that Oregon chub habitats will continue (Service 2008b, pp. 40–51; NMFS 2008, this impact for the overall population is to be managed for the species into the pp. 2–43 to 2–52), because these considered a low risk because the foreseeable future. biological opinions apply to other listed species is widely distributed across Summary of Factors Affecting the fish species (Upper Willamette spring multiple subbasins with many abundant Species chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus populations. In the past 4 years, we tshawytscha), Upper Willamette winter have received approximately 13 such This section contains updated steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and requests to review section 404 permits information and associated analysis bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus)). The from the USACE. Of those 13 projects, from that presented in the proposed rule USACE also has a memorandum of we found that 9 were not likely to (79 FR 7136, February 6, 2014). Updated understanding (MOU) with The Nature adversely affect Oregon chub and 2 information includes data collected Conservancy’s (TNC) Sustainable Rivers projects only required technical during the 2013 field season (Bangs et Project, an ongoing collaboration to assistance; we completed 1 formal al. 2013, entire) and additional promote ecologically sustainable flows consultation for a river restoration study information requested by peer and below USACE dams in the Willamette that only anticipated short-term effects public reviewers. River Basin (USACE and TNC 2000, and long-term benefits. The last project Section 4 of the Act and its 2011; entire). For these reasons, we was an emergency consultation when implementing regulations (50 CFR part anticipate that the USACE will continue the USACE had to take action to 424) set forth the procedures for listing to meet these minimum flow targets maintain water levels in Oregon chub species, reclassifying species, or after delisting of the Oregon chub. Also, habitat on their property, as the habitat removing species from listed status. the acquisition of floodplain habitat for was affected by atypical, unexpected ‘‘Species’’ is defined by the Act as long-term conservation and restoration, operations necessary for dam safety. The including any species or subspecies of including off-channel locations USACE worked with the ODFW to fish or wildlife or plants, and any preferred by the Oregon chub, has introduce Oregon chub into Hills Creek distinct vertebrate population segment gained momentum in the Willamette Pond during the drawdown as a back- of fish or wildlife that interbreeds when River Basin by a variety of Federal, up to the Dexter RV Park Pond ‘‘DEX3’’ mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A species State, Tribal, local governmental, and and the Dexter Reservoir Alcove ‘‘PIT1’’ may be determined to be an endangered nongovernmental agencies, which populations, in case either population or threatened species due to one or more provides assurances that Oregon chub failed during the drawdown. of the five factors described in section habitat will continue to be managed for Comment (9): One commenter stated 4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The present or the species. Given the MOU between the that there are no regulatory mechanisms threatened destruction, modification, or USACE and TNC regarding the to protect Oregon chub habitat in the curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) Sustainable Rivers Project, and the floodplain habitats that have been overutilization for commercial, minimum flows required under two acquired for long-term conservation and recreational, scientific, or educational existing biological opinions (NMFS restoration. purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) 2008, pp. 2–43 to 2–52; Service 2008b, Our response: We disagree. One of the the inadequacy of existing regulatory pp. 40–51) for bull trout, Upper factors identified as a threat to Oregon mechanisms; or (E) other natural or Willamette spring chinook, Upper chub at the time of listing was habitat manmade factors affecting its continued Willamette winter steelhead, and their loss. This threat has been ameliorated existence. We must consider these same designated critical habitats, we by the actions of multiple conservation five factors in delisting a species. We anticipate that flow management partners over the last 20 years. In 2010, may delist a species according to 50 trending towards natural flow regimes the Bonneville Power Administration CFR 424.11(d) if the best available below Willamette Project dams will (BPA) and the State of Oregon signed scientific and commercial data indicate continue to create and rejuvenate off- the Willamette River Basin that the species is neither endangered channel habitats to the benefit of the Memorandum of Agreement Regarding nor threatened for the following reasons: Oregon chub into the foreseeable future. Wildlife Habitat Protection and (1) The species is extinct; (2) the species The USACE permits in-water work Enhancement (BPA and ODFW 2010, has recovered and is no longer including construction and dredging in entire). The Agreement established goals endangered or threatened (as is the case navigable waters under section 404 of for mitigating the effects of the with the Oregon chub); and/or (3) the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:51 Feb 18, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19FER3.SGM 19FER3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES 9134 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

original scientific data used at the time known to exist at nine locations, habitats, to the threats of habitat loss the species was classified were in error. representing only 2 percent of the and invasion by nonnative fishes. The A recovered species is one that no species’ historical range (Markle 1991, majority of Oregon chub individuals longer meets the Act’s definition of pp. 288–289; Scheerer et al. 2007, p. 2; occur in populations at these endangered or of threatened. 58 FR 53800, October 18, 1993, p. introduction sites. In 2013, we Determining whether the status of a 53800). The decline in Oregon chub estimated 106,408 Oregon chub in the species has improved to the point that abundance and distribution was 21 introduced populations. By contrast, it can be delisted or downlisted requires attributed to the extensive we estimated 53,255 Oregon chub in the consideration of whether the species is channelization, dam construction, and 56 naturally occurring populations. endangered or threatened because of the chemical contamination that occurred Eleven of the introduction sites are in same five categories of threats specified in the Willamette River Basin, public ownership by Federal and State in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. For species particularly from the 1940s through the agencies that manage these sites for that are already listed as endangered or late 20th century (Pearsons 1989, pp. conservation of the Oregon chub, and threatened, this analysis of threats is an 29–30). we have no information that suggest evaluation of both the substantial Since listing, concerted efforts by these sites would be managed otherwise threats currently facing the species and Federal, State, and local governments into the foreseeable future. the threats that are reasonably likely to and private landowners have greatly The remaining 10 introduction sites affect the species in the foreseeable reduced the threats to the Oregon chub. are privately owned. Many of these future following the delisting or For example, the introduction of the introduction sites were created or downlisting and the removal or Oregon chub into secure habitats has restored under the Service’s Partners for reduction of the Act’s protections. created refugial populations in habitats Fish and Wildlife Program managed by A species is an ‘‘endangered species’’ that are isolated from the threats of the staff of the Willamette Valley for purposes of the Act if it is in danger habitat loss and invasion by nonnative National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Most of extinction throughout all or a fishes. Additionally, as explained of these landowners have either signed ‘‘significant portion of its range’’ and is below, research has expanded our conservation agreements or are a ‘‘threatened species’’ if it is likely to understanding of suitable habitat for the participating in our Safe Harbor become endangered within the Oregon chub, and increased survey Program. In the interest of conserving foreseeable future throughout all or a efforts have led to the discovery of many the Oregon chub, our Safe Harbor ‘‘significant portion of its range.’’ The natural populations. Since 2002, the Program participants volunteered to word ‘‘range’’ in the significant portion USACE has implemented minimum allow the introduction of the Oregon of its range phrase refers to the range in dam outflow targets that sustain chub into ponds on their land, and which the species currently exists. For downstream floodplain habitat, which signed management plans called the purposes of this analysis, we will has reduced the threat of habitat loss for cooperative agreements, which are first evaluate whether the currently the Oregon chub. These minimum flow designed to protect the species and its listed species, the Oregon chub, should targets will continue to be required into habitat. In exchange, the landowners be considered endangered or threatened the future under existing biological received an incidental take permit that throughout all its range. Then we will opinions from the Service and NMFS on extended an exemption from take consider whether there are any the USACE’s Willamette River Basin prohibitions under section 9 of the Act. significant portions of the Oregon Project (see description below). The If the Oregon chub is delisted, the chub’s range where the species is in USACE also has a MOU with TNC species will no longer be protected danger of extinction or likely to become regarding the Sustainable Rivers Project, under these take prohibitions and the so within the foreseeable future. an ongoing collaboration to promote incidental take permit associated with The Act does not define the term ecologically sustainable flows below the safe harbor agreements will no ‘‘foreseeable future.’’ For the purpose of USACE dams in the Willamette River longer be in effect. This means that this rule, we define the ‘‘foreseeable Basin. For these reasons, we anticipate landowners will no longer be legally future’’ to be the extent to which, given that the USACE will continue to meet bound to protect the species on their the amount and substance of available these minimum flow targets after property. However, we anticipate, based data, we can anticipate events or effects, delisting of the Oregon chub. Also, the on their past interest and cooperation in or reliably extrapolate threat trends, acquisition of floodplain habitat for protecting the species, that most or all such that we reasonably believe that long-term conservation and restoration, of these landowners will continue to reliable predictions can be made including off-channel locations manage their land for conservation of concerning the future as it relates to the preferred by the Oregon chub, has the Oregon chub into the future as status of the Oregon chub. In gained momentum in the Willamette described in their cooperative considering the foreseeable future as it River Basin by a variety of Federal, agreements. We will also seek to extend relates to the status of the Oregon chub, State, Tribal, local governmental and these agreements beyond their initial we considered the factors affecting the nongovernmental agencies, which 10-year time period and, in the event Oregon chub, historical abundance provides assurances that Oregon chub the property is later sold or transferred, trends, and ongoing conservation habitat will continue to be managed for we will work with the future efforts. the species. landowners to enroll them in a The following analysis examines all Since 1992, the Oregon chub was cooperative agreement. five factors currently affecting, or that introduced and established in 21 secure, In 2013, 20 of the 23 populations that are likely to affect, the Oregon chub isolated habitats (Bangs et al. 2013, p. met the recovery plan criteria for within the foreseeable future. 15). These populations contribute to delisting were located on State, Federal, recovery by providing redundancy to Tribal, or other property managed for A. The Present or Threatened the naturally occurring populations, long-term conservation; 3 populations Destruction, Modification, or increasing the abundance of the Oregon were located on privately owned Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range chub in each recovery area, and property. The close knit working When the Oregon chub was listed as providing refugial habitat that is less relationship with private landowners is endangered in 1993, the species was vulnerable, as compared to connected extremely important for the recovery of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:51 Feb 18, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19FER3.SGM 19FER3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 9135

Oregon chub; 40 percent of all Oregon (Bangs et al. 2010a, pp. 2–4). The ODFW Several anthropogenic and natural chub populations exist on privately chose the Dexter to Jasper reach of the environmental factors, discussed below, owned property. We see no reason why Middle Fork Willamette River as a study may continue to have effects on Oregon the conservation efforts of landowners area because several off-channel habitats chub and its habitat in the foreseeable would cease after delisting, as all efforts in this reach were known to be occupied future. Many of these factors are have been voluntary. There are an by the Oregon chub, and the majority of included in this discussion because the additional 9 recently discovered or the adjacent land is in public ownership Service previously identified them as introduced populations that exist on and accessible. threats to the continued existence of the public lands with abundances greater The ODFW sampled most of the species in the listing and downlisting than 500 adult Oregon chub, further hydrologically connected, off-channel rules. Additionally, new factors supporting our determination to delist habitat in this reach and discovered that affecting the species are discussed. the species. the Oregon chub also occupied sites In the 2008 5-year review of the status previously thought to be unsuitable. Activities Related to the Willamette of the Oregon chub (Service 2008a, p. These sites contain greater habitat Project 26), we identified concerns about the complexity than sites where Oregon The Oregon chub occupies 45 ability to achieve recovery due to the chub were previously known to occur. connected habitats that are downstream focus on managing primarily isolated Although these habitats have features of Willamette Project dams or adjacent populations with limited genetic such as beaver dams and shallow, to reservoirs; these habitats are exchange. To reduce threats associated inundated benches that were known to influenced by Willamette Project with habitat isolation, we suggested that provide suitable habitat for Oregon operations. The Willamette Project future recovery efforts should integrate chub, the recently discovered sites also biological opinions were signed in 2008, habitat that is connected to the include channels that have frequent and continue until 2023 (NMFS 2008, p. floodplain. Successful efforts to connectivity to the adjacent river 1–11; Service 2008b, p. 85). In addition integrate floodplain habitat into Oregon channel (Bangs 2013, pers. comm.). to normal operations of the Willamette chub recovery were facilitated in part Frequently connected sites such as these Project, several actions required under through consultation with several were thought to be unsuitable because the terms and conditions of the Federal agencies under section 7 of the these sites were accessible to nonnative biological opinions may affect Oregon Act. Specifically, in 2008, the Service fishes that prey upon or compete with chub populations and habitat in the and the NMFS completed consultation the Oregon chub for resources. future. with the USACE, BPA, and the Bureau The discovery of Oregon chub in Temperature and flow of Reclamation under section 7 of the these connected sites facilitated a better augmentation—The USACE is Act on the continued operation and understanding of the diversity of implementing a number of structural maintenance of 13 large flood-control habitats occupied by Oregon chub, and and operational changes to alter flows dams in the Willamette River Basin, prompted the ODFW to shift their basin- and water temperatures downstream of collectively known as the Willamette wide sampling efforts from primarily Willamette Project dams to increase River Basin Project (Willamette Project). focusing on isolated habitats or habitats survival of federally listed salmon and The Service’s biological opinion with infrequent river connection to steelhead (salmonids). These considered the Willamette Project’s sampling frequently connected, off- operational and structural changes have effects to the Oregon chub, the bull channel habitats. They sampled similar resulted in downstream water trout, and bull trout critical habitat habitat in other recovery subbasins and temperatures closer to that which (Service 2008b, entire), while the found that Oregon chub also occupied existed prior to the construction of the NMFS’ biological opinion considered many of these frequently connected dams (i.e., river temperatures effects to threatened salmon and habitats. Between 2009 and 2013, the downstream of the reservoirs are now steelhead (salmonids) and associated ODFW discovered 34 additional Oregon warmer in early summer, and cooler in critical habitat (NMFS 2008, entire). The chub populations throughout the 3 the late summer and early fall). The terms and conditions of the Service’s recovery subbasins (Bangs et al. 2013, USACE also operates to meet mainstem biological opinion required the USACE pp. 6–8). In 2013, 14 of the 23 and tributary flow objectives identified to fund a floodplain study that would populations that met the delisting in the Willamette Project biological increase our understanding of the effects criteria were in naturally occurring opinion to benefit listed salmonids; of flow management on connected sloughs, beaver pools, and pond these flows also benefit the Oregon chub downstream Oregon chub habitat. The habitats. Fifty-six of the 77 habitats by sustaining floodplain habitat ODFW subsequently pursued containing Oregon chub were naturally downstream. In addition, the USACE opportunities to study these effects and occurring; 21 populations were works with partners in the Willamette to integrate floodplain habitat in introduced. In addition, 50 Oregon chub River Basin as part of TNC’s Sustainable recovery efforts, in part, through populations are located in habitat that Rivers Project to implement a set of funding provided by the USACE under experiences some level of connectivity environmental flow objectives designed the terms and conditions of the to the adjacent river channel. The to improve channel morphology in a biological opinion. Service has determined that the manner that will create and sustain The floodplain study required by the minimum aquatic area necessary to new, and improve existing, fish habitat Willamette Project biological opinion support a population of at least 500 (Gregory et al. 2007, p. 11). began in 2009 (Bangs et al. 2010a, p. 1). adult Oregon chub is 500 square meters The effects of water flow Under this study, the ODFW sampled (m2) (5,400 square feet (ft2)) (74 FR augmentation and temperature fish assemblages and monitored habitat 10412, March 10, 2009, p. 10417). Out normalization on fish communities in conditions (i.e., bathymetry, pond of the 77 populations, only a single off-channel habitat are largely unknown. volume, percent vegetation, water location, Dougren Island Slough, has an The ODFW has a monitoring program in temperature) in several off-channel aquatic area smaller than 500 m2 (5,400 place (Bangs et al. 2011a, entire) to habitats in the Middle Fork Willamette ft2); the site is 400 m2 (4,300 ft2) and detect any negative effects on Oregon River downstream of Dexter Dam in supported 1,700 adult Oregon chub in chub and its habitat. With the delisting Lowell, Oregon, to Jasper, Oregon 2013. of Oregon chub, this monitoring

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:51 Feb 18, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19FER3.SGM 19FER3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES 9136 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

program, which is detailed in our PDM accumulation of fine sediments, perhaps to manage the water level in Lookout plan, will continue for several years beyond typical historical levels, which Point Reservoir independently of the post-delisting (Service and ODFW 2013, reduced the amount of habitat available water elevation in Hospital Pond. In entire). The PDM plan identifies to Oregon chub (Bangs 2013, pers. order to achieve this, they installed a thresholds and responses for detecting comm.). However, little sedimentation gate on Hospital Pond’s outlet culvert and reacting to significant changes in was observed in the few Oregon chub and lined the porous berm between the Oregon chub protected habitat, habitats that occur farther downstream pond and reservoir (Service 2002, pp. 1– distribution, and persistence. If declines of the confluence of Fall Creek and the 11). They also excavated additional are detected that exceed the thresholds, Middle Fork Willamette River. Most of areas to create more suitable spawning the Service, in combination with other the abundant populations of Oregon habitat in the pond (Service 2003, pp. PDM participants, will investigate chub in off-channel habitats of the 1–3). causes of these declines and determine Middle Fork Willamette River were not Despite these actions, water elevation if the Oregon chub warrants expanded affected because they occur upstream of in Hospital Pond continues to be monitoring, additional research, these impacts. influenced by reservoir water levels. additional habitat protection, or Although partial drawdowns of Hospital Pond currently supports a relisting as an endangered or threatened Willamette Project reservoirs are likely large, stable population of the Oregon species under the Act. Additional to occur in the near future, they are chub; however, future Willamette discussion about temperature and unlikely to result in large volumes of Project operations may result in instream flows is presented in the sediment moving downstream because reservoir elevations that are below the ‘‘Effects of Climate Change’’ section the water level will remain above the levels necessary to inundate the (also in Factor A). sediment bed and little sediment will be spawning habitat in Hospital Pond Reservoir drawdowns—As required in moved. Complete reservoir drawdowns (Service 2008b, p. 160). This reduction the NMFS biological opinion for the to the extent seen at Fall Creek are not in spawning habitat may result in Willamette Project, the USACE is currently planned at other reservoirs. limited breeding success for the Oregon implementing an annual complete The effects of a complete reservoir chub in Hospital Pond into the reservoir drawdown of Fall Creek drawdown would vary by location; it is foreseeable future. However, the Reservoir on the Middle Fork difficult to predict what habitat changes Hospital Pond population is not critical Willamette River. The biological may occur downstream. However, any to meeting recovery criteria because objectives of the reservoir drawdown are future proposal to implement this scale additional surveys in the Middle Fork to improve fish passage efficiency and of drawdown will include extensive Willamette River subbasin have found survival of juvenile Chinook salmon coordination and planning among the that the subbasin has the highest migrating out of Fall Creek Reservoir, Service, ODFW, USACE, and other land number of Oregon chub populations (29 and to reduce nonnative fish managers. Additionally, in cooperation populations) across the range of the populations inhabiting the Fall Creek with the USACE, we developed species. Currently, 17 of the Oregon Reservoir. This is expected to result in monitoring guidance and recommended chub sites in this subbasin have reduced nonnative predation and responses in the event a drawdown is abundant (greater than 500 individuals) competition with juvenile Chinook planned (Service and ODFW 2013, pp. populations of the Oregon chub. This salmon rearing in the reservoir. While 18–19). We do not anticipate that redundancy of large populations reservoir drawdown benefits Chinook potential negative impacts from provides additional security to the salmon, there are potential negative reservoir drawdowns will affect the species in the event that single effects to the Oregon chub from overall status of Oregon chub. populations decline. sedimentation of Oregon chub habitats. Additional discussion about reservoir Inability to meet minimum flow Willamette River Basin flood control drawdown is presented in the ‘‘Effects targets—During low water or drought dams inhibit the transport of sediment of Climate Change’’ section (also in years, the USACE may not be able to downstream, causing sedimentation to Factor A). meet the seasonal minimum water flow occur in the reservoirs. During a Another concern related to targets established in the Willamette complete reservoir drawdown, released drawdowns is that nonnative predatory Project biological opinions. Analysis reservoir water scours the reservoir bed fishes are common in reservoir habitats. performed by the USACE determined and transports sediment downstream. During a drawdown, these fish are likely that from 1936 to 1999, low flow and During the initial Fall Creek Reservoir transported downstream, where they drought conditions occurred 9 percent drawdowns, a massive volume of silt, may invade off-channel habitats. The and 16 percent of the years, respectively sand, and debris was flushed, causing risks to the Oregon chub associated with (USACE 2007, pp. 2–45). If this occurs sediment deposition to occur in off- nonnative fishes are discussed under in the future, it may have negative channel habitats downstream of the Factors C and E, below. effects on Oregon chub habitat dam. Sampling for Oregon chub Reservoir water level fluctuations— downstream through a temporary populations in the Fall Creek drainage Fluctuating water levels in Lookout reduction in pond volume and occurred after the first drawdown and Point Reservoir on the Middle Fork increased water temperatures. Under the three previously undocumented Oregon Willamette River may limit the breeding floodplain study, the ODFW mapped chub populations were found. The success of the Oregon chub population the bathymetry (habitat depth) and extent to which these populations were in Hospital Pond, which provides installed equipment to measure pond affected is unknown because Oregon habitat for the species in a pool elevation, area, volume, and chub were discovered at these sites after connected to the reservoir by a culvert temperature in Oregon chub sites that the sedimentation occurred and we (Service 2008b, p. 160). Between 2001 are influenced by Willamette Project cannot determine the area of habitat or and 2003, the USACE, which manages flows. This information was used to number of Oregon chub that existed Lookout Point Reservoir as part of the determine the effect that low flows may prior to the sedimentation. Fewer than Willamette Project, implemented a have on the extent of habitat area five Oregon chub were found in each of series of actions to protect the available to Oregon chub. The USACE these three sites after the sedimentation population of Oregon chub in Hospital has considered these data in managing occurred. These sites experienced the Pond. The goal was to allow the USACE flows and has a notification process in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:51 Feb 18, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19FER3.SGM 19FER3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 9137

place to coordinate with the Service and pp. 3–19). Therefore, we anticipate that landscapes that were, or could be, the ODFW during low water periods the USACE will continue to meet these subject to adverse effects of timber before flows are reduced to levels below minimum flow targets after delisting of harvest. These adverse effects include the minimum flow targets. To date, the Oregon chub, except under siltation (deposition of fine sediment) of except for during malfunctions and infrequent, extreme conditions such as stream habitats from ground-disturbing emergency operations explained below, drought. activities involved with standard flows below minimum targets have been In 2010, the USACE determined that logging practices. State and private of short duration and have not resulted the condition and reliability of the lands in Oregon are subject to water in observable adverse effects to Oregon spillway gates at 13 Willamette Project quality as well as fish and wildlife chub populations (Bangs 2013, pers. dams represented an unacceptable risk protective measures under the Oregon comm.). Further, when minimum targets to public safety (Bangs et al. 2011b, p. Forest Practices Act, whereas Federal cannot be met, the Service, ODFW, 16). To mitigate this risk, the USACE lands are subject to land and resource NMFS, and USACE coordinate on a proposed implementing pool elevation management plans that also provide regular basis to discuss reduced flow restrictions at Willamette Project protective guidelines for water quality releases in advance; this coordination reservoirs to lower than normal levels to and fish and wildlife protections. While allows the Service to weigh in on the support maintenance and repair of the siltation resulting from timber harvest magnitude of reductions and mitigate spillway gates. The imposed restrictions has not been identified as a significant any reductions in flows that may affect affected one population (Dexter threat to Oregon chub, there is at least Oregon chub populations. This Reservoir Alcove ‘‘PIT1’’ site) of Oregon one instance where siltation from timber coordination will continue into the chub by reducing the pond below levels harvest may have contributed to a future, as required by the two biological critical for Oregon chub survival. The decrease in habitat suitability and opinions, for other listed fish species Dexter Reservoir Alcove ‘‘PIT1’’ site had availability that resulted in a drop in (Service 2008b, pp. 38–40; NMFS 2008, filled with sediment over the years and chub abundance. pp. 2–39 to 2–43). in consultation with the USACE, we In the 1990s, timber harvest occurred Willamette Project malfunctions and determined that removing some of this on private lands upstream of East Fork emergency operations resulting in the sediment was the best measure to Minnow Creek. Flood events in the USACE not meeting minimum flow prevent desiccation of the pond. Prior to watershed in 1996, 1997, and 1998 targets or necessitating restrictions on removing sediment, the ODFW captured caused accelerated siltation into East reservoir pool elevations have affected and relocated a total of 1,127 Oregon Fork Minnow Creek Pond, a pond Oregon chub habitats. These incidents chub to Hills Creek Pond, a site with downstream that is occupied by Oregon have been infrequent, but resulted in perennial flow located on USACE chub, and over half of the habitat was short-term negative effects on a few property at Hills Creek Dam. This site is lost (Scheerer 2009, pers. comm.). The Oregon chub populations. For instance, within the historical range of Oregon Oregon chub population in East Fork in 2009, two of the three spillway gates chub, but at the time was not occupied Minnow Creek Pond declined at the USACE Big Cliff dam on the by the species. The pond site is adjacent dramatically following these events North Santiam River failed (Bangs et al. to the Middle Fork Willamette River and (Scheerer 2009, pers. comm.). In 2010, 2010b, p. 16). While repairing the gates, has historically been managed by the Oregon Department of the outflow from Big Cliff Dam was USACE staff for wildlife habitat Transportation excavated accumulated reduced to below the minimum summer enhancement. The spillway gate repairs sediment in the pond and created a pool flow target. Record high air were completed, the pool elevation that will provide a buffer from the temperatures coincided with the low restriction for Dexter Reservoir was effects of future siltation. The flow levels. Monitoring during this lifted in 2011, and the reservoir has population subsequently rebounded and event detected that three Oregon chub returned to normal operations. The it now meets the delisting criterion for sites downstream were nearly Oregon chub population abundance in a stable or increasing trend over 7 years. desiccated and fish mortalities were Dexter Reservoir Alcove ‘‘PIT1’’ site and In 2012, timber harvest on private observed. Screened pumps were used to Dexter RV Park Pond ‘‘DEX3’’ are both land occurred upstream of an Oregon increase the volume of water in the currently stable and contribute towards chub site on the William L. Finley ponds and to reduce water meeting recovery criteria for delisting National Wildlife Refuge (Finley NWR) temperatures. The effects of this (Bangs et al. 2013, p. 8). The known as Gray Creek Swamp. Due to incident on Oregon chub populations translocation of Oregon chub into Hills concerns about potential sedimentation were short-term, and the numbers of Creek Pond created a large, secure to Oregon chub habitat in Gray Creek Oregon chub in these three populations population that is now the largest Swamp, we negotiated with the have either increased or are exhibiting Oregon chub population within the landowner who agreed to increase the a stable trend (Bangs et al. 2013, pp. 6– Middle Fork Willamette River subbasin width of the no-cut riparian buffer along 8). with an estimated abundance of 14,610 the streams within the harvest area to The minimum flow targets protect not Oregon chub (Bangs et al. 2013, p. 8). reduce the risk of siltation in Oregon only the Oregon chub, but many other Additional discussion about minimum chub habitat downstream. Siltation of native aquatic species, including listed flow requirements is presented in the this Oregon chub habitat following salmonids. If the Oregon chub is ‘‘Effects of Climate Change’’ section harvest has not been observed, but the delisted, these minimum flow targets (also in Factor A). site will continue to be monitored by will continue to be required under the ODFW during the 9-year post- existing biological opinions from the Siltation Resulting From Timber Harvest delisting monitoring period. Service and the NMFS on the As previously noted, Oregon chub The potential for adverse effects to Willamette Project for listed bull trout, habitats are generally associated with Oregon chub habitat from timber harvest Chinook salmon, and steelhead. low gradient floodplain habitats not was also identified at three other sites: Moreover, the USACE was proactive in generally subject to timber harvest Dexter Reservoir Alcove ‘‘PIT1’’ site, implementing recommended flows activities. However, there are a small Buckhead Creek, and Wicopee Pond before the Willamette Project biological number of Oregon chub populations (Scheerer 2008, pers. comm.). However, opinions were completed (USACE 2007, that exist within, or adjacent to, forested we did not observe levels of siltation at

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:51 Feb 18, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19FER3.SGM 19FER3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES 9138 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

these sites that resulted in habitat loss, recovering from periodic disturbance, as To date, we have not observed declines and all of the Oregon chub populations the species would have historically. in Oregon chub populations that can be within each of the five sites located Additional discussion about increased attributed to agricultural practices, and downstream of harvest activities met the flood events is presented in the ‘‘Effects several Oregon chub habitats located delisting criteria in 2013. Additionally, of Climate Change’’ section (also in adjacent to farmland have supported the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) manages Factor A). abundant populations of Oregon chub several Oregon chub sites within the for many years. Water Quality Issues Willamette National Forest. As noted Several Oregon chub sites are located above, forests managed by the USFS The analysis of threats in the final adjacent to private forestland (as operate under land and resource rule to list the Oregon chub as an previously discussed above under management plans that include endangered species and the recovery ‘‘Siltation Resulting from Timber management practices protective of fish plan for the species discussed numerous Harvest’’). Additionally, the USFS (USFS 1990, pp. IV–61–64), and we potential threats to water quality in manages several Oregon chub sites anticipate these resource management Oregon chub habitats. However, in the within the Willamette National Forest. plans will continue to guide forest 20 years since the Oregon chub was Forests managed by the USFS operate management into the future. listed, only a few of these concerns, under land and resource management While future siltation of habitats discussed below, have materialized, and plans that include management occupied by Oregon chub from timber even then, these were localized and of practices protective of fish (USFS 1990, harvest activities clearly is possible, the short duration. pp. IV–61–64), and we anticipate these frequency is anticipated to be very low, In the spring of 2011, the ODFW resource management plans will as will be the potential number of noted the complete die-off of the continue to guide forest management affected populations. Given this fact, introduced Oregon chub population in into the foreseeable future. On private and the protections afforded by the Cheadle Pond on the Finley NWR. They forestland, the use of chemicals is Oregon Forest Practices Act and Federal assessed the water quality (temperature, regulated by the Oregon Department of land management plans, we do not pH, and dissolved oxygen) and Forestry, and operators are required to believe siltation from timber harvest discovered that the pH level was comply with product labels and represents a substantial population-level abnormally high (mean pH: 9.6, range: additional protective measures to threat to Oregon chub now or in the 8.4–10.2). The pH level in Oregon chub protect waters of the State, including foreseeable future. habitats typically ranges between 7.42 leaving untreated vegetated buffers and and 8.66. The cause of the increased pH limiting aerial applications near areas of Floods and Seasonal High-Water Events level was unknown and had not been standing open water larger than one- The Oregon chub is a low-elevation, observed previously at this site. The quarter acre (Oregon Revised Statutes floodplain-dependent species that ODFW subsequently conducted an in- (ORS) 527.765 and OAR 629–620–0000 evolved under dynamic environmental situ 7-day bioassay using 30 adult through 629–620–0800). Although we conditions created by seasonal flooding Oregon chub from the Gray Creek have no information regarding and droughts. As a result, the species’ Swamp population. All of the Oregon landowners’ compliance with these life history reflects these dynamic chub survived the trial and were rules on forestland in the vicinity of conditions. While floods and seasonal released into Cheadle Pond following Oregon chub habitats, we have not high-water events constitute a potential the bioassay. We have not observed, and observed harmful effects to Oregon chub stressor to individuals or specific do not anticipate based on this one populations due to chemical exposure Oregon chub populations, these events event, similar incidents in other Oregon related to forestry operations. create and maintain off-channel habitats chub habitats. During our analysis of the factors necessary for the long-term persistence Nutrient enrichment may have caused affecting the Oregon chub, we of the species, and they function to the extirpation of the Oregon chub determined that spills via sewage transport the Oregon chub to colonize population at Oakridge Slough in the discharge, hazardous cargo from trucks, these new sites. Middle Fork Willamette River subbasin. railways and pipelines, which were For example, in 2007, a flood event in The slough is downstream from the identified as threats when the species the Santiam River caused channel Oakridge Sewage Treatment Plant, and was first listed, no longer pose a avulsion (a shift in the stream channel increased nitrogen and phosphorus significant threat to the species. At the that results in the rapid abandonment of concentrations were detected in the time of listing, of the nine Oregon chub a river channel and formation of a new slough prior to a decline in the populations known to exist, seven of river channel) at an Oregon chub site, population. While the nutrient these locations were directly adjacent to reducing the extent of habitat available concentrations are not believed to be major transportation corridors where at this location and likely negatively directly harmful to the species, the threats to water quality had the affecting this population. Yet in another elevated nutrient levels may have potential to impact Oregon chub. example, between 2000 and 2003, new contributed to habitat conditions that Currently, Oregon chub have been off-channel habitat formed in the were unsuitable for Oregon chub (i.e., documented in 77 populations widely McKenzie River due to flooding and, an increase in growth of algae, which distributed throughout the Willamette after aquatic vegetation became then decomposed and led to low oxygen River Basin; 20 of these locations are established, the site was subsequently conditions below what the Oregon chub adjacent to transportation corridors. In colonized by the Oregon chub (Bangs requires to survive) (Buck 2003, p. 12). addition, two populations are adjacent 2013, pers. comm.). Although we cannot Several Oregon chub sites are located to sewage treatment plants. Despite the predict the magnitude or the extent to adjacent to agricultural land. Runoff proximity to potential threats to water which current Oregon chub habitats from farm fields may contain pesticides quality, in the 20 years since the Oregon may be affected by flooding and or fertilizers that could adversely affect chub was listed, only a few of these seasonal high water events, the number the water quality in Oregon chub concerns have materialized, and even and distribution of large populations, in habitats. However, many of these sites then, these were localized and of short combination with habitat heterogeneity, have protective vegetated buffers duration. The current distribution of the increases the species’ resilience in between crops and the aquatic habitat. Oregon chub in many abundant

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:51 Feb 18, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19FER3.SGM 19FER3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 9139

populations located across multiple constructed in the 1940s through the Fork Willamette River subbasin, a drop subbasins reduces the risk that the 1960s. Oregon chub populations have in summer water level and a significant above factors will affect a large portion persisted under managed flow decline in Oregon chub abundance of Oregon chub and its habitat. In conditions for more than 60 years. In coincided with increased irrigation use summary, we conclude that none of the addition, under the Service’s Willamette by a farm located upstream. However, existing or potential water quality- Project biological opinion (Service this was an isolated event that we have related threats, either alone or in 2008b, pp. 40–51) and the NMFS not observed at other sites. Many combination with others, constitutes a Willamette Project biological opinion Oregon chub populations occur on substantial threat to the Oregon chub (NMFS 2008, pp. 2–43 to 2–52), publicly owned lands or on areas now or in the foreseeable future. minimum flow levels established for managed for conservation, where direct Additional discussion about listed salmonids will continue to protect water withdrawals do not occur. In temperature and dissolved oxygen Oregon chub habitat. Other non- addition, water levels at habitats levels is presented in the ‘‘Effects of regulatory efforts are working to restore adjacent to mainstem river channels are Climate Change’’ section (also in Factor floodplain function and sediment highly dependent on river flow, and are A). transport, such as TNC’s Willamette less likely to be negatively impacted by Sustainable Rivers Project. In this irrigation withdrawals due to the Aggradation project, TNC has developed an MOU amount of hyporheic (subsurface) flow Aggradation is an alluvial process with the USACE to release stored water into these habitats from the adjacent where sediment deposition (deposition in high-flow pulses to restore natural river. Based on the wide distribution of of all sizes of sediments, both coarse processes in managed portions of the Oregon chub, we consider the potential and fine) is more rapid than the capacity Middle Fork, McKenzie, and Santiam negative impact to the overall status of of a river to transport sediment Rivers. Given the MOU between the Oregon chub from irrigation downstream. We observed aggradation USACE and TNC regarding the withdrawals to be very low. at the Geren Island North Channel in the Sustainable Rivers Project, and the Effects Related to Climate Change North Santiam River. Natural movement minimum flows required under existing of the river channel changed sediment biological opinions from the Service and Our analyses under the Act include deposition in the upstream end of this NMFS, we anticipate flow management consideration of observed or likely location, which had the potential to trending towards natural flow regimes environmental changes resulting from block water flow into the site. The City below Willamette Project dams will ongoing and projected changes in of Salem, which manages the site, continue to create and rejuvenate off- climate. As defined by the excavated a portion of the channel to channel habitats and benefit Oregon Intergovernmental Panel on Climate allow free-flowing water to enter Oregon chub into the future. Change (IPCC), the term ‘‘climate’’ refers chub habitat. To date, we have not We are not aware of any particular to the mean and variability of different observed a decline in the Geren Island sites that are vulnerable to succession in types of weather conditions over time, population. With the exception of this the near future; however, the sites that with 30 years being a typical period for site and habitats in Fall Creek, which remain hydrologically isolated during such measurements, although shorter or we discussed previously, no other high flows are cut off from these natural longer periods also may be used (IPCC Oregon chub habitats are negatively processes, and succession may continue 2013a, p. 1450). The term ‘‘climate impacted by aggradation. We consider resulting in a reduction of open water change’’ thus refers to a change in the the potential negative impacts to the habitat. For instance, succession mean or the variability of relevant overall status of Oregon chub from occurred at Herman Pond, an isolated properties, which persists for an aggradation to be very low now and in Oregon chub site in the Coast Fork extended period, typically decades or the foreseeable future. Willamette Basin, which led to a longer, due to natural conditions (e.g., solar cycles) or human-caused changes Succession reduction in habitat area and a decline in population abundance. In 2005, the in the composition of atmosphere or in Succession resulting from the site was excavated to remove land use (IPCC 2013a, p. 1,450). manipulation of river flows was successional vegetation. This activity Scientific measurements spanning identified as a potential threat to Oregon was successful in increasing open water several decades demonstrate that chub habitat in the downlisting rule (75 habitat and led to an increase in Oregon changes in climate are occurring. In FR 21179, April 23, 2010). Succession is chub abundance at this location. Given particular, warming of the climate a natural, long-term ecological process the wide distribution and number of system is unequivocal, and many of the that ponds go through as they mature. Oregon chub habitats under different observed changes in the last 60 years are As vegetation dies back seasonally, it land ownership, we are uncertain unprecedented over decades to deposits on the substrate of the pond, whether manual modification of chub millennia (IPCC 2013b, p. 4). The causing a reduction in water depth over habitats to reverse the effects of current rate of climate change may be as time. Eventually, plant communities succession will occur in the future fast as any extended warming period shift from aquatic to amphibious following delisting. However, given that over the past 65 million years and is wetland plants, and the open-water we are not aware of any particular sites projected to accelerate in the next 30 to ponds are replaced by seasonal wetland vulnerable to succession in the 80 years (National Research Council and marsh habitat. Historically, seasonal foreseeable future, we determined that 2013, p. 5). Thus, rapid climate change high flows and alluvial floodplain there is very little potential negative is adding to other sources of extinction processes created off-channel habitat, impact, if any, to the overall status of pressures, such as land use and invasive and rejuvenated existing habitats by Oregon chub from succession. species, which will likely place flushing out sediment and diversifying extinction rates in this era among just a the aquatic plant community. These Irrigation Withdrawals handful of the severe biodiversity crises processes no longer function as they did A few Oregon chub sites may be observed in Earth’s geological record historically because flows are regulated influenced by irrigation water (American Association for the under the USACE’s Willamette Project. withdrawals. In recent years, at Elijah Advancement of Sciences (AAAS) 2014, The Willamette Project dams were Bristow Berry Slough in the Middle p. 17).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:51 Feb 18, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19FER3.SGM 19FER3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES 9140 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

Examples of various other observed Various changes in climate may have The 29,700-km2 (11,467-mi2) and projected changes in climate and direct or indirect effects on species. Willamette River Basin is a large associated effects and risks, and the These may be positive, neutral, or complex river basin, influenced by two basis for them, are provided for global negative, and they may change over mountain ranges: the Cascades and the and regional scales in recent reports time, depending on the species and Coast Range (Chang and Jung 2010, pp. issued by the IPCC (2013c, 2014), and other relevant considerations, such as 187–190). The rain-dominated Coast similar types of information for the interactions of climate with other Range occupies about 20 percent of the United States and regions within it can variables such as habitat fragmentation basin; the Cascade Range occupies more be found in the National Climate (for examples, see Franco et al. 2006; than 50 percent, and includes the rain- Assessment (Melillo et al. 2014, entire). Forister et al. 2010; Galbraith et al. 2010; dominated Western Cascades and the Results of scientific analyses Chen et al. 2011). In addition to snow-dominated High Cascades. The presented by the IPCC show that most considering individual species, Willamette Valley region lies between of the observed increase in global scientists are evaluating potential these two ranges. Thus, the basin has average temperature since the mid-20th climate change-related impacts to, and complex terrain and geology, and a wide century cannot be explained by natural responses of, ecological systems, habitat range of elevations that influence the variability in climate and is ‘‘extremely conditions, and groups of species (e.g., timing and magnitude of runoff. Given likely’’ (defined by the IPCC as 95 to 100 Deutsch et al. 2008; Berg et al. 2010; this physical variability, the effects of percent likelihood) due to the observed Euskirchen et al. 2009; McKechnie and climate change will not uniformly affect increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) Wolf 2010; Sinervo et al. 2010; all areas or subbasins of the Willamette concentrations in the atmosphere as a Beaumont et al. 2011; McKelvey et al. River (Chang and Jung 2010, pp. 194– result of human activities, particularly 2011; Rogers and Schindler 2011). 204). carbon dioxide emissions from fossil Climate change effects present The hydrology of the Willamette River fuel use (IPCC 2013b, p. 17 and related substantial uncertainty regarding the Basin is largely influenced by winter citations). future environmental conditions in the rainfall and spring snowmelt, with 77 Willamette River Basin and may place Scientists use a variety of climate percent of the flow occurring between an added stress on the Oregon chub and November and April (Chang and Jung models, which include consideration of its habitats. The IPCC has concluded 2010, p. 190). Overall, the Willamette natural processes and variability, as that recent warming is already strongly Basin is considered water abundant in well as various scenarios of potential affecting aquatic biological systems, as Oregon. In addition to rainfall, the basin levels and timing of GHG emissions, to evidenced by increased runoff and is influenced by spring snowmelt and evaluate the causes of changes already earlier spring peak discharge in many spring-fed tributaries at higher observed and to project future changes glacier- and snow-fed rivers (IPCC 2007, elevations (e.g., High Cascades region), in temperature and other climate p. 8). Projections for climate change and shallow groundwater aquifers in conditions. Model results yield very effects in North America include low-elevation areas in the valley that similar projections of average global decreased snowpack, more winter recharge during the rainy season (OCCRI warming until about 2030, and flooding, and reduced summer flows 2010a, p. 97–104). The Willamette River thereafter the magnitude and rate of (IPCC 2007, p. 14), which may increase and its tributaries are highly altered warming vary through the end of the periods of drought (Oregon Climate with multiple large reservoirs and other century depending on the assumptions Change Research Institute (OCCRI) human influences such as dams, levees, about population levels, emissions of 2010a, p. 112). and floodplain development. Multiple, GHGs, and other factors that influence Observed changes in temperature in large USACE dams, constructed in the climate change. Thus, absent extremely the Pacific Northwest (PNW) already 1950s and 1960s for flood reduction, rapid stabilization of GHGs at a global show an increase of 1.5 degrees Celsius altered seasonal discharge and level, there is strong scientific support over the past century due to human temperatures, reduced peak flood flows, for projections that warming will activities (OCCRI 2010b, p. 6). Global and augmented summer low flows continue through the 21st century, and climate models project temperature (OCCRI 2010a, p. 77). Climate change that the magnitude and rate of change increases for the PNW of approximately effects that may affect Oregon chub will be influenced substantially by 2 to 4 degrees Celsius (3 to 10 degrees include increased winter flooding, human actions regarding GHG Fahrenheit) by 2080 (OCCRI 2010b, p. increased temperatures, reduced emissions (IPCC 2013b, 2014; entire). 7). Projections for climate change effects summer baseflows, and increased Global climate projections are in the Willamette Valley in the next negative interactions with nonnative informative, and, in some cases, the century also include warmer air fishes. Each of these is discussed below. only or the best scientific information temperatures that will lead to lower soil Increased Winter Floods—Effects of available for us to use. However, moisture and increased evaporation climate change predicted for the PNW projected changes in climate and related from streams and lakes (Climate may include increased winter flood impacts can vary substantially across Leadership Initiative (CLI) and National events (OCCRI 2010a, pp. 87–88). These and within different regions of the Center for Conservation Science and events, which are often associated with world (e.g., IPCC 2013c, 2014; entire) Policy (NCCSP) 2009, p. 9; OCCRI an increased proportion of annual and within the United States (Melillo et 2010a, p. 71). The frequency of short- precipitation falling as rain instead of al. 2014, entire). Therefore, we use term (3- and 6-month) droughts in the snow and reduced snowpack, may ‘‘downscaled’’ projections when they Willamette Valley will likely increase better mimic natural riverine processes are available and have been developed due to decreased summer rainfall, (such as channel migration, scour, etc.) through appropriate scientific which may result in reduced summer to create and maintain riverine habitats procedures, because such projections baseflows and exacerbate water on which Oregon chub depend. Oregon provide higher resolution information temperature increases. However, long- chub evolved in a dynamic, alluvial that is more relevant to spatial scales term droughts (12 and 24 months) are river with broad floodplains and used for analyses of a given species (see not projected to substantially change braided reaches with many side Glick et al. 2011, pp. 58–61, for a across most of the Willamette Basin channels, sloughs, and other similar discussion of downscaling). (OCCRI 2010a, p. 112). slack-water habitats. Large floods

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:51 Feb 18, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19FER3.SGM 19FER3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 9141

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:51 Feb 18, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19FER3.SGM 19FER3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES 9142 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:51 Feb 18, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19FER3.SGM 19FER3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 9143

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:51 Feb 18, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19FER3.SGM 19FER3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES 9144 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

program worked to establish conditions siltation, and hazardous material spills Therefore, based on the best available that allow populations of Oregon chub have the potential to affect individual information and because we expect that to be resilient to changing populations, but few observations of current management practices will environmental conditions and to persist negative effects due to water quality continue into the foreseeable future, we as viable populations into the future. issues have materialized over the past conclude that the present or threatened Our recovery program for the species 20 years that we have been monitoring destruction, modification, or focused on maintaining large Oregon chub populations. Succession curtailment of its habitat or range does populations distributed within the was a factor at one Oregon chub site and not constitute a substantial threat to species’ entire historical range in a may occur in the future, particularly at Oregon chub now and is not expected variety of ecological settings (e.g., across sites that are isolated from the to in the foreseeable future. a range of elevations). This approach is floodplain. However, succession is a consistent with the general principles of slow process that can be addressed B. Overutilization for Commercial, conservation biology. In their review of through ongoing monitoring and habitat Recreational, Scientific, or Educational minimum population viability management, and is not currently a Purposes literature, Traill et al. (2009, p. 3) found cause for concern at any of the known Overutilization for commercial, that maintenance of large populations Oregon chub sites. recreational, scientific, or educational across a range of ecological settings Other factors that may affect the purposes was not a factor in listing, nor increases the likelihood of species Oregon chub and its habitat include is it currently known to be a threat to persistence under the pressures of actions required under the terms and the Oregon chub. environmental variation, and facilitates conditions of the Willamette Project the retention of important adaptive biological opinions, aggradation, and C. Disease or Predation traits through the maintenance of irrigation withdrawals. Actions required Predation by Nonnative Fishes and genetic diversity. Maintaining multiple under the Willamette Project biological Amphibians populations across a range of ecological opinions began in 2008, but the effects In the final rule to downlist the settings, as described in the recovery to Oregon chub habitat from these Oregon chub (75 FR 21179, April 23, plan, increases the likelihood that many actions are not well understood as the 2010), we identified predation by, and abundant populations will persist under focus of most of these actions is competition with, nonnative fishes as the stresses of a changing climate. recovery of listed salmonids. Research into the effects of these actions on off- primary threats to Oregon chub Summary of Factor A channel habitats started in 2009 and (competition with nonnative fishes is Many of the factors discussed above will continue for the next few years. addressed below under Factor E). The were previously identified as threats to This research may lead to an improved Willamette River Basin contains 31 the continued existence of the Oregon understanding of the habitat native fish species and 29 nonnative chub. These factors include activities characteristics that support abundant species (Hulse et al. 2002, p. 44). The associated with the operation of the populations of Oregon chub in large-scale alteration of the Willamette Willamette Project dams, sedimentation connected habitats and flow River Basin’s hydrologic system (i.e., from timber harvest, floods or high- management recommendations specific construction of dams and the resultant water events, water quality-related to maintaining Oregon chub habitat. changes in flood frequency and impacts, succession, and the effects of Aggradation from natural causes has intensity) created conditions that favor climate change. Modifications to the been identified at one Oregon chub site, nonnative, predatory fishes, and Willamette Project dam operations have and aggradation from a complete reservoirs throughout the basin have provided flows that create and sustain drawdown of Fall Creek Reservoir become sources of continual nonnative off-channel habitat used by the Oregon resulted in large deposits of sediment in fish invasions in the reaches chub, and we anticipate these flow three previously unknown Oregon chub downstream (Li et al. 1987, p. 198). targets will continue into the future due habitats. Other than these events, Significant declines in Oregon chub to requirements under biological aggradation has not been observed at abundance due to the presence of opinions from the Service and NMFS, Oregon chub sites. Irrigation withdrawal nonnative fishes were documented. For and the Sustainable Rivers Project was observed to negatively affect the instance, after floods in 1996, nonnative collaboration between the USACE and volume of water available in one Oregon fish were first collected from several TNC. Sedimentation from timber chub habitat in the Middle Fork River sites containing Oregon chub in the harvest is not currently indicated in the subbasin, but is not considered a Santiam River drainage; the two largest decline of any Oregon chub widespread concern throughout the populations of Oregon chub (Geren populations, and we expect that riparian range of Oregon chub. Island North Pond and Santiam buffers protected from timber harvest In summary, the factors discussed Easement) subsequently declined under State and Federal regulations will under Factor A continue to occur across sharply in abundance (Scheerer 2002, p. provide habitat protection in future the subbasins occupied by Oregon chub, 1076). timber harvest operations. Flooding and but only a few populations have Nonnative fish, which prey upon high-water events are largely exhibited declines as a result of any of Oregon chub, were also introduced into unpredictable. However, Oregon chub the factors or combination of factors. Oregon chub habitats. For example, evolved within a dynamic environment The threat of habitat loss has been illegal planting of largemouth bass at and the current distribution of Oregon reduced by changes in flow East Ferrin Pond in the Middle Fork chub in many abundant populations management and by introducing the Willamette River drainage coincided within subbasins and across multiple species into secure, isolated habitats with the collapse of an Oregon chub subbasins reduces the risk that these that are not influenced by floodplain population that had once totaled more events will negatively affect a large processes. We also better understand the than 7,000 fish. A regulatory mechanism proportion of Oregon chub and its diversity of connected habitats used by is in place to prevent the translocation habitat. Declines in water quality related Oregon chub and, as a result, discovered of nonnative fish. Within the State of to factors such as chemical many abundant populations in these Oregon, it is unlawful to transport, contamination, nutrient enrichment, habitats across multiple subbasins. release, or attempt to release any live

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:51 Feb 18, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19FER3.SGM 19FER3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 9145

fish into the waters of this State (OAR in Oregon chub abundance (Bangs 2013, facing substantial threats to its long- 635–007–0600). Although similar illegal pers. comm.). term survival due to the other four introductions may still occur in the The Oregon chub is not known to be factors; thus the inadequacy of existing future, they have historically been threatened by disease. regulatory mechanisms is also no longer infrequent in habitats known to be Summary of Factor C a threat to the species’ continued occupied by Oregon chub. existence. Therefore, our discussion of Predatory, nonnative centrarchids Although the habitat conditions that this factor focuses on regulatory (bass and sunfish), western allow Oregon chub to coexist with mechanisms not previously discussed mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis), and nonnative fish are not yet well that may provide benefits to Oregon bullhead catfish (Ameiurus spp.) are understood, we documented several chub. common in the off-channel habitats abundant Oregon chub populations in Wetlands and waterways in Oregon multiple subbasins that coexist with preferred by Oregon chub (Scheerer are protected by both Federal and State nonnative, predatory fish. These Oregon 2002, p. 1,075). The Oregon chub is laws. The Environmental Protection chub populations exist in habitat that is most abundant at sites where nonnative Agency (EPA) administrates the Clean connected to the active floodplain. fishes are absent (Scheerer 2007, p. 96). Water Act (CWA; 33 U.S.C. 1251 et Ongoing research conducted under the However, ODFW biologists recently seq.)), which regulates discharges of floodplain study funded by the USACE found many abundant Oregon chub pollutants into waters of the United will continue to improve our populations that coexist with nonnative States and regulates water quality understanding of the interactions fish in hydrologically connected standards. The EPA sets standards for between Oregon chub and nonnative habitats (Bangs et al. 2011a, pp. 21–24). pollution control programs and water fishes. quality standards for all contaminants in One of the primary objectives of the While the presence of nonnative floodplain study funded under the surface waters. Many of the water fishes in isolated sites may be associated quality criteria are set for human health Willamette Project biological opinion with higher rates of predation on (Service 2008b, pp. 180–182; see standards or salmon and steelhead life Oregon chub, the species has been stage needs, which exceed biological previous discussion under Factor A) is introduced into 21 isolated habitats that to examine the relationship between the requirements for Oregon chub. For are protected from the risk of invasion example, the upper temperature environmental conditions at by nonnative fishes due to the habitat hydrologically connected sites and the tolerance of Oregon chub is significantly distance from the floodplain or other higher than the maximum allowable fish community, with a focus on Oregon fish barriers. As discussed elsewhere in temperatures set by EPA criteria for chub and nonnative fish. The results to this document, these introductions act salmon and steelhead spawning and date indicate that spatial and seasonal as refugial habitats, and the guidelines rearing. differences in temperature within these used to select sites ensure that these While we acknowledge that there are off-channel habitats may provide areas locations remain stable during extreme Oregon chub in reaches in the that are suitable for Oregon chub but not climactic events, such as droughts or Willamette River that are on the section suitable for nonnatives. In other words, floods. During major flooding in the 303(d) list of impaired and threatened Oregon chub may be able to coexist with Willamette River Basin in 1996, these waters under the CWA, Oregon chub nonnative fish because the habitat sites remained isolated from populations have continued to expand provides a diverse range of temperatures neighboring water bodies. In addition, throughout the Willamette River Basin that partitions habitats among the the introduction sites are less vulnerable in spite of these section 303(d) waters. species (Bangs et al. 2011a, pp. 9–10 to the threats of habitat loss compared Further, we do not foresee future water and 16–17). Currently, 41 percent of all to connected habitats, and the quality declines (i.e., temperature, known Oregon chub habitats and 50 translocation guidelines ensured that dissolved oxygen, biological criteria) percent of the habitats supporting the Oregon chub in these isolated that are a threat to the continued abundant populations (more than 500 populations are genetically diverse. existence of Oregon chub and require its Oregon chub) contain nonnative fishes. Introduced populations at these sites continued listing under the Act. The Research conducted under the study have been highly successful, and the Service has consulted with the EPA on will continue to: (1) Improve our majority of Oregon chub individuals existing Oregon water quality standards understanding of the effects of occur in populations at these sites. and the Service’s biological opinion nonnative fishes on Oregon chub in Therefore, based on the best available concluded that the Oregon water quality these connected habitats; and (2) information, we conclude that disease standards are not likely to jeopardize document the habitat conditions that and predation do not constitute the continued existence of Oregon chub allow these species to coexist. Sampling substantial threats to Oregon chub now, (Service 2004, pp. 76–77). While the results to date indicate that Oregon chub nor are they expected to in the courts remanded the 2004 biological coexist with nonnatives more frequently foreseeable future. opinion back to the Service, and we than previously known. Additional continue to work with the EPA to discussion about predation by D. The Inadequacy of Existing complete this consultation, the remand nonnative fish is presented in the Regulatory Mechanisms was based on thermal requirements for ‘‘Effects of Climate Change’’ section In evaluating the inadequacy of bull trout, not Oregon chub. (discussed under Factor A). existing regulatory mechanisms, we first Under section 404 of the CWA, the Bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) were identify threats under one or more of the USACE regulates the discharge of identified as a threat to Oregon chub in other four factors that are affecting the dredged material and fill material into the recovery plan (Service 1998, p. 13) species to the extent it meets the waters of the United States, including because they may compete with Oregon definition of an endangered or a navigable waters and wetlands that may chub for food resources (e.g., threatened species under the Act. We contain Oregon chub. Oregon’s invertebrates). However, bullfrogs are then identify and evaluate the adequacy Removal-Fill Law (ORS 196.795–990) prevalent in most of the habitats of existing regulatory mechanisms that requires people who plan to remove or occupied by Oregon chub and their may prevent or reduce those threats. fill material in waters of the State to presence is not correlated with a decline The Oregon chub, however, is no longer obtain a permit from the Oregon

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:51 Feb 18, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19FER3.SGM 19FER3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES 9146 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

Department of State Lands (DSL). the species’ continued existence, E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Projects impacting waters often require adversely modify or destroy Oregon Affecting Its Continued Existence both a State removal-fill permit, issued chub critical habitat, or reach levels Interspecific Competition With by the DSL, and a Federal permit issued preventing Oregon chub from attaining Nonnative Fishes by the USACE. A permit is required the abundance and distribution criteria only if 50 cubic yards (1,350 cubic feet) for delisting identified in the recovery Along with the adverse impacts of or more of fill or removal will occur. plan (Service 2012, pp. 351–352). direct predation described under Factor The removal-fill law does not regulate C (above), nonnative fishes compete The Oregon chub is designated as the draining of wetlands. Projects with Oregon chub for food resources, ‘‘Sensitive-Critical’’ by the ODFW. permitted under these programs must such as aquatic invertebrates. Although this designation is a avoid and minimize impacts to Competition with nonnative fishes may wetlands or waterways, or propose nonregulatory tool, it helps focus contribute to the decline in populations mitigation to replace the functions and wildlife management and research or exclusion of Oregon chub from values lost as a result of the project activities, with the goal of preventing suitable habitats. Observed feeding (Oregon Department of State Lands species from declining to the point of strategies and diet of nonnative fishes, 2013, p. 64). Some actions, however, qualifying as ‘‘threatened’’ or particularly juvenile centrarchids and such as construction and maintenance ‘‘endangered’’ under the Oregon adult western mosquitofish, overlap of irrigation-diversion structures and Endangered Species Act (ORS 496.171, with those described for Oregon chub other activities associated with ongoing 496.172, 496.176, 496.182, and (Li et al. 1987, pp. 197–198). At South farming operations in existing cropped 496.192). ODFW’s ‘‘Sensitive-Critical’’ Stayton Pond, a hydrologically isolated wetlands, are exempt from CWA designation encourages, but does not site in the Santiam River Basin, we requirements. Additionally, projects require, the implementation of observed a population of 6,200 Oregon authorized under a nationwide USACE conservation actions for the species; chub decline to 2,200 in one season permit program receive minimal public however, other State agencies, such as after invasion by western mosquitofish, and agency review unless the action the DSL and the Oregon Water a nonnative fish that competes with may affect a listed species, in which Resources Department, refer to the adults and potentially predates on larval Oregon chub. The source of this case, consultation under section 7 of the Sensitive Species List when making invasion is unknown, but it is likely that Act is required. Individual permits are regulatory decisions. the western mosquitofish were illegally subject to a more rigorous review, as The ODFW’s Sensitive Species List is introduced into the pond. The well as nationwide permit activities reviewed and updated every 5 years. population remained above 1,000 for the with more than minimal impacts. Each taxonomic group of animals is past 4 years (Bangs 2014, pers. comm.), Under section 303(c) of the CWA, reviewed by the ODFW biologists and demonstrating the ability of nonnative States are required to adopt water scientific experts from other agencies, fish to competitively suppress Oregon quality standards to restore and universities, and private organizations. chub populations. Other populations of maintain the chemical, physical, and The scientists consider new and historic the Oregon chub are possibly biological integrity of the nation’s information on species distribution, suppressed by competition with waters. Oregon adopted revised water population trends, and biological needs; nonnative fishes. However, the current quality standards for toxic pollutants in changes in threats; gaps in knowledge abundance of Oregon chub and its 2004. These standards are intended to and data; recent conservation actions; distribution throughout floodplain protect native aquatic species, and are and State and Federal programs or habitats in the Santiam, McKenzie, and regulated by the Oregon Department of regulations. The scientists may propose Middle Fork Willamette Rivers indicates Environmental Quality. The State to remove, add, or re-classify species that competition by nonnative fish is implements the standards through based on this information. The draft list not affecting Oregon chub populations listing of waters that exceed criteria on is then peer-reviewed by State, Federal, to the degree that overall status declines the section 303(d) list of the CWA, university, and consulting biologists. are observed. Additional discussion calculating the Total Maximum Daily The ODFW is currently updating the about competition by nonnative fish is Loads (the maximum amount of Sensitive Species List and plans to presented in the ‘‘Effects of Climate pollutants that may enter a stream), and retain the ‘‘Sensitive-Critical’’ Change’’ section (see Factor A). issuing or reissuing permits (i.e., designation for Oregon chub for the Isolated Populations National Pollutant Discharge duration of the post-delisting Elimination System). In 2012, we monitoring plan timeframe. Twenty-eight populations of the completed consultation under section 7 Oregon chub are currently isolated; 21 of the Act on the EPA’s proposed Summary of Factor D of these sites are introduced sites where approval of the State of Oregon’s water isolation was intentional in order to quality criteria for toxic pollutants Although existing regulatory provide refugia from the threat of (Service 2012, entire). Although some mechanisms offer limited protection to nonnative fishes. Other sites are isolated Oregon chub sites may be affected by Oregon chub, we have no indication due to the reduced frequency and point-source discharges (i.e., wastewater that other factors, which these magnitude of flood events and the treatment facilities and stormwater mechanisms are designed to address, are presence of migration barriers such as discharge from a manufacturing plant) likely to occur at such a magnitude as beaver dams. Managing species in and non-point-source discharges (i.e., to negatively impact large numbers of isolation may have genetic runoff of agricultural and forestry Oregon chub or a substantial area of consequences. Burkey (1989, p. 78) pesticides and fertilizers) of toxic habitat. Therefore, based on the best concluded that, when species are chemicals, we determined in our available information, we conclude that isolated by fragmented habitats, low consultation with the EPA that the the inadequacy of existing regulatory rates of population growth are typical in Oregon chub’s exposure to these mechanisms does not constitute a local populations, and their probability chemicals at the criteria levels and the substantial threat to Oregon chub now, of extinction is directly related to the resulting effects would not jeopardize nor is it projected to in the future. degree of isolation and fragmentation.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:51 Feb 18, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19FER3.SGM 19FER3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 9147

Without sufficient immigration, growth small habitat area with limited declines in Oregon chub populations or of local populations may be low and resources. Although this decline was its habitat. probability of extinction high (Burkey substantial (abundance of 6,200 chub Overall Summary of Factors Affecting 1989, p. 78). The genetic analyses declined to 2,200 chub in one season), Oregon Chub performed on Oregon chub (DeHaan et the population since stabilized and al. 2010, pp. 14–19; 2012, pp. 548–549) persists with about 1,000 Oregon chub The primary factors that threatened found high levels of genetic variation at (Bangs et al. 2013, p. 6). We Oregon chub were loss of habitat, most locations. Also, the genetic documented numerous additional predation and competition by nonnative analyses found that our guidelines for abundant Oregon chub populations in fishes, and the inadequacy of existing establishing introduction sites are habitats that are connected to the regulatory mechanisms. The threats that effective, and introductions stocked floodplain, which facilitates potential led to the species’ listing under the Act from multiple donor sources have genetic exchange among populations. have been removed or ameliorated by higher variability than those from single This has ameliorated the risk of a the actions of multiple conservation donor sources. In addition, 50 of the 77 reduction in genetic diversity. The partners over the last 20 years. The Oregon chub populations are located in impacts associated with the effects of introduction of Oregon chub into habitat that experiences some level of climate change will be somewhat several secure habitats has provided connectivity to the adjacent river ameliorated by the multiple storage populations that are isolated from the channel; 34 of these populations were dams in the Willamette River Basin, the threats of habitat loss and invasion by discovered since we downlisted the wide range of temperature tolerances of nonnative fishes. The discovery of many Oregon chub to threatened status in Oregon chub, and the diversity of natural populations, including a number 2010. Furthermore, the ODFW habitats occupied by the species. To the of populations that are connected to the documented Oregon chub in new extent the effects of climate change active floodplain and coexist with habitat created by floodplain processes manifest on the landscape, these nonnative fishes, has increased our in the McKenzie River subbasin, and impacts are, and will continue to be, understanding of population persistence documented voluntary movement of reduced by the distribution of many in spite of the presence of predators in Oregon chub between populations in abundant populations in diverse the species’ environment. The the Middle Fork Willamette River habitats across multiple subbasins. implementation of minimum instream (Bangs et al. 2012, p. 19) and McKenzie Therefore, based on the best available flows and ongoing flushing flows from River subbasins (Bangs et al. 2013, p. information, we conclude that other Willamette Project dams that sustain 17). These findings demonstrate the natural or manmade factors do not floodplain habitat downstream reduced ability of Oregon chub to colonize new constitute a substantial threat to Oregon the risk of habitat loss due to altered habitats and exchange genetic material chub now, nor will they in the flows. The acquisition of floodplain between established populations. foreseeable future. habitat for long-term conservation and Manual transport of Oregon chub Cumulative Impacts restoration provided assurance that between populations has not been management of floodplain habitat for proposed, and we think it unnecessary Some of the factors discussed in this five-factor analysis could work in the species will continue into the at this time for the maintenance of foreseeable future. populations. Although a recent genetic concert with one another or analysis found that Oregon chub in synergistically to create cumulative Many factors still exist that may affect isolated habitats have levels of genetic impacts to Oregon chub populations. Oregon chub populations; however, diversity equal to or greater than other For example, effects from flow, dam most of these factors were isolated cyprinids, additional Oregon chub may operations, and temperature changes incidents, and the magnitude of their need to be introduced into these downstream of Willamette Project dams effects were not observed on a wide isolated populations in the future to may coincide with an increase in scale across the distribution of Oregon maintain genetic diversity in the event nonnative fish species that prey upon chub populations. The abundance and a population shows a significant and compete with Oregon chub. distribution of known Oregon chub decline. Although the types, magnitude, extent, populations has increased each year In the final rule to reclassify Oregon or permutations of cumulative impacts since the downlisting to threatened, and chub to threatened (75 FR 21179, April are difficult to assess, the current status has exceeded the goals of our recovery 23, 2010), we expressed concern about of Oregon chub indicates that no such criteria for delisting. When the species genetic isolation due to the lack of synergies drive population declines now was listed in 1993, only nine habitat connectivity between Oregon or have the potential to in the future, populations of Oregon chub within a chub populations. As stated above, we and the post-delisting monitoring plan small, restricted range were known to discovered that many of the habitats is designed to detect such declines if occur. Oregon chub populations now occupied by the Oregon chub connect to they occur. As discussed below, the exist in 77 diverse habitats across the adjacent river channel more agencies and nongovernmental multiple subbasins. Listing the species frequently and for longer duration than organizations that manage multiple under the Act resulted in the previously understood, which provides populations agreed to cooperate on the implementation of focused recovery opportunities for genetic dispersal. implementation of the post-delisting actions that led to protected, abundant, monitoring plan, which will guide the and well-distributed Oregon chub Summary of Factor E monitoring and, should population populations across several Willamette Interspecific competition with declines occur, necessary research and River Basin tributaries. We expect nonnative fishes and isolation from conservation actions. The best scientific conservation efforts will continue to genetic exchange may affect Oregon and commercial data available indicate support persistent recovered Oregon chub populations in the future. that Oregon chub is genetically diverse, chub populations post-delisting and However, we observed population abundant, and well-distributed into the future, as described above. declines related to competition with throughout its historical range and that Based on this assessment of factors nonnative fishes in only one Oregon the factors are not currently, or potentially impacting the species, we chub population, South Stayton Pond, a anticipated to, cumulatively cause consider Oregon chub to face no

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:51 Feb 18, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19FER3.SGM 19FER3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES 9148 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

substantial threats, now or into the no evidence of decline over the last 7 or that, without the members in that foreseeable future. more years. During our analysis, we did portion, the species would be in danger not identify any factors that are likely to of extinction, or likely to become so in Determination reach a magnitude that threatens the the foreseeable future, throughout all of An assessment of the need for a continued existence of the species; its range; (3) the range of a species is species’ protection under the Act is significant impacts at the time of listing considered to be the general based on whether a species is in danger that could have resulted in the geographical area within which that of extinction or likely to become so extirpation of all or parts of populations species can be found at the time the because of any of five factors: (A) The have been eliminated or reduced since Service or NMFS makes any particular present or threatened destruction, listing, and we do not expect any of status determination; and (4) if a modification, or curtailment of its these conditions to substantially change vertebrate species is endangered or habitat or range; (B) overutilization for post-delisting and into the foreseeable threatened throughout an SPR, and the commercial, recreational, scientific, or future. We conclude that the previously population in that significant portion is educational purposes; (C) disease or recognized impacts to Oregon chub from a valid Distinct Population Segment predation; (D) the inadequacy of the present or threatened destruction, (DPS), we will list the DPS rather than existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) modification, or curtailment of its the entire taxonomic species or other natural or manmade factors habitat or range (specifically, operation subspecies. affecting its continued existence. As of the USACE’s Willamette Project The procedure for analyzing whether required by section 4(a)(1) of the Act, dams, sedimentation from timber any portion is an SPR is similar, we conducted a review of the status of harvest and floods, water quality issues, regardless of the type of status this species and assessed the five factors succession, and effects of climate determination we are making. The first to evaluate whether the Oregon chub is change (Factor A); predation by step in our analysis of the status of a endangered or threatened throughout all nonnative species (Factor C); and species is to determine its status of its range. We examined the best interspecific competition with throughout all of its range. If we scientific and commercial information nonnative species, and isolation from determine that the species is in danger available regarding the past, present, genetic exchange (Factor E)), do not rise of extinction, or likely to become so in and future threats faced by Oregon chub to a level of significance such that the the foreseeable future, throughout all of and its habitat. We reviewed the species is in danger of extinction its range, we list the species as an information available in our files and throughout all of its range now or in the endangered species (or threatened other available published and foreseeable future. species) and no SPR analysis will be unpublished information, and we required. If the species is neither in consulted with recognized experts and Significant Portion of the Range danger of extinction nor likely to other Federal, State, and Tribal Analysis become so throughout all of its range, agencies. Having determined that the Oregon we next determine whether the species In considering what factors might chub throughout all its range, is not is in danger of extinction or likely to constitute threats, we must look beyond endangered or threatened throughout all become so throughout a significant the mere exposure of the species to the of its range, we next consider whether portion of its range. If it is, we list the factor to determine whether the there are any significant portions of its species as an endangered species or exposure causes actual impacts to the range in which the Oregon chub is in threatened species, respectively; if it is species. If there is exposure to a factor, danger of extinction or likely to become not, we conclude that listing the species but no response, or only a positive so. Under the Act and our implementing is not warranted. response, that factor is not a threat. If regulations, a species may warrant When we conduct an SPR analysis, there is exposure and the species listing if it is in danger of extinction or we first identify any portions of the responds negatively, the factor may be likely to become so throughout all or a species’ range that warrant further a threat and we then attempt to significant portion of its range. The Act consideration. The range of a species determine how significant the threat is. defines ‘‘endangered species’’ as any can theoretically be divided into If the threat is significant, it may drive, species which is ‘‘in danger of portions in an infinite number of ways. or contribute to, the risk of extinction of extinction throughout all or a significant However, there is no purpose in the species such that the species portion of its range,’’ and ‘‘threatened analyzing portions of the range that warrants listing as endangered or species’’ as any species which is ‘‘likely have no reasonable potential to be threatened as those terms are defined by to become an endangered species within significant or in analyzing portions of the Act. This determination does not the foreseeable future throughout all or the range in which there is no necessarily require empirical proof of a a significant portion of its range.’’ We reasonable potential for the species to be threat. The combination of exposure and published a final policy interpreting the endangered or threatened. To identify some corroborating evidence of how the phrase ‘‘Significant Portion of its only those portions that warrant further species is likely impacted could suffice. Range’’ (SPR) (79 FR 37578; July 1, consideration, we determine whether The mere identification of factors that 2014). The final policy states that (1) if substantial information indicates that: could impact a species negatively is not a species is found to be endangered or (1) The portions may be ‘‘significant’’ sufficient to compel a finding that threatened throughout a significant and (2) the species may be in danger of listing is appropriate; we require portion of its range, the entire species is extinction there or likely to become so evidence that these factors are operative listed as endangered or threatened, within the foreseeable future. threats that act on the species to the respectively, and the Act’s protections Depending on the biology of the species, point that the species meets the apply to all individuals of the species its range, and the threats it faces, it definition of an endangered species or wherever found; (2) a portion of the might be more efficient for us to address threatened species under the Act. range of a species is ‘‘significant’’ if the the significance question first or the We find that Oregon chub populations species is not currently endangered or status question first. Thus, if we are well-distributed among several threatened throughout all of its range, determine that a portion of the range is subbasins and that many large, stable, or but the portion’s contribution to the not ‘‘significant,’’ we do not need to increasing populations exist that show viability of the species is so important determine whether the species is

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:51 Feb 18, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19FER3.SGM 19FER3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 9149

endangered or threatened there; if we throughout all or a significant portion of years total), which will begin in 2015. determine that the species is not its range, nor is it likely to become so Both Willamette Project biological endangered or threatened in a portion of within the foreseeable future. We opinions continue until 2023, and flow its range, we do not need to determine conclude Oregon chub no longer and temperature augmentation will be if that portion is ‘‘significant.’’ In requires the protection of the Act, and, implemented during this period practice, a key part of the determination therefore, we are removing it from the (Service 2008b, pp. 68–72; NMFS 2008, that a species is in danger of extinction Federal List of Endangered and pp. 2–43 to 2–52, 2–125 to 2–128). in a significant portion of its range is Threatened Wildlife. Monitoring through this time period whether the threats are geographically will allow us to address any possible Future Conservation Measures concentrated in some way. If the threats negative effects to Oregon chub to the species are affecting it uniformly Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us, associated with changes to flow and throughout its range, no portion is likely in cooperation with the States, to temperatures. As funding allows, we to have a greater risk of extinction, and implement a monitoring program for not will collect data on roughly three thus would not warrant further less than 5 years for all species that have generations of Oregon chub in each of consideration. Moreover, if any been recovered and delisted. The the three subbasins, which will allow concentration of threats apply only to purpose of this post-delisting time to observe fluctuations in portions of the range that clearly do not monitoring (PDM) is to verify that a population abundance that may be meet the biologically based definition of species remains secure from risk of attributed to residual stressors. Sites ‘‘significant’’ (i.e., the loss of that extinction after the protections of the included in the floodplain study will be portion clearly would not be expected to Act are removed, by developing a sampled annually over the next 9 years, increase the vulnerability to extinction program that detects the failure of any enabling the Service and PDM partners of the entire species), those portions delisted species to sustain itself. If, at to recommend flow and temperature would not warrant further any time during the monitoring period, regimes that are beneficial to native consideration. data indicate that protective status fishes in to the future. Sites outside the We considered whether any portions under the Act should be reinstated, we floodplain study will be sampled only of Oregon chub range might be both can initiate listing procedures, once during each 3-year cycle, thus significant and in danger of extinction, including, if appropriate, emergency reducing annual sampling costs from or likely to become so in the foreseeable listing under section 4(b)(7) of the Act. current levels. future. One way to identify portions Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan Overview The final PDM plan identifies would be to identify natural divisions measurable management thresholds and within the range that might be of The Service developed a final PDM responses for detecting and reacting to biological or conservation importance. plan in cooperation with the ODFW. In significant changes in Oregon chub The geographic range of Oregon chub addition, the USACE, USFS, Oregon protected habitat, distribution, and can readily be divided into four Parks and Recreation Department, persistence. If monitoring detects subbasins (Santiam, Mainstem McKenzie River Trust, and Willamette declines equaling or exceeding these Willamette, Middle Fork Willamette, Valley National Wildlife Refuge thresholds, the Service in combination and Coast Fork Willamette Rivers). Complex agreed to cooperate with us in with other PDM participants will Although some of the factors we the implementation of the PDM plan. investigate causes of these declines, evaluated in the Summary of Factors The PDM plan is designed to verify that including considerations of habitat Affecting the Species section, above, the Oregon chub remains secure from changes, substantial human persecution, occur in specific habitat types (i.e., the risk of extinction after removal from stochastic events, or any other hydrologically connected sites versus the Federal List of Endangered and significant evidence. Such investigation isolated sites) within these subbasins, Threatened Wildlife by detecting will determine if Oregon chub warrants the factors affecting Oregon chub changes in its status and habitat expanded monitoring, additional generally occur at similarly low levels throughout its known range. The final research, additional habitat protection, throughout its range. Because the low PDM plan consists of: (1) A summary of or relisting as an endangered or a level of potential threats to the species the species’ status at the time of threatened species under the Act. If is essentially uniform throughout its delisting; (2) an outline of the roles of relisting Oregon chub is warranted, range and the populations of the species PDM cooperators; (3) a description of emergency procedures to relist the within the subbasins are not in danger monitoring methods; (4) an outline of species may be followed, if necessary, in of extinction or likely to become so the frequency and duration of accordance with section 4(b)(7) of the within the foreseeable future due to lack monitoring; (5) an outline of data Act. of significant threats, no portion of the compilation and reporting procedures; We will post the final PDM plan and range warrants further consideration to and (6) a definition of thresholds or any future revisions on our national determine if it is significant. Based on triggers for potential monitoring Web site (http://endangered.fws.gov) our review of the best available outcomes and conclusions of the PDM and on the Oregon Fish and Wildlife information concerning the distribution effort. Office’s Web site (http://www.fws.gov/ of the species and the potential threats, The final PDM plan will monitor oregonfwo/). we have determined that the Oregon Oregon chub populations following the Effects of the Rule chub does not warrant further same sampling protocol used by the consideration to determine if there is a ODFW prior to delisting. Monitoring This final rule revises 50 CFR 17.11(h) significant portion of the range that is will consist of three components: by removing Oregon chub from the endangered or threatened. Oregon chub distribution and Federal List of Endangered and abundance, potential adverse changes to Threatened Wildlife. As such, as of the Summary Oregon chub habitat due to effective date of this rule (see DATES), We carefully assessed the best environmental or anthropogenic factors, the prohibitions and conservation scientific and commercial data available and the distribution of nonnative fishes measures provided by the Act, and determined that the Oregon chub is in Oregon chub habitats. The PDM particularly through sections 7 and 9, no no longer in danger of extinction period consists of three 3-year cycles (9 longer apply to this species (including

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:51 Feb 18, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19FER3.SGM 19FER3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES 9150 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

those contained in the existing National Environmental Policy Act Regulation Promulgation conservation agreement, all safe harbor We have determined that Accordingly, we amend part 17, agreements, and all biological opinions environmental assessments and for this species). There are no habitat subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the environmental impact statements, as Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: conservation plans related to Oregon defined under the authority of the chub. Removal of Oregon chub from the National Environmental Policy Act of PART 17—[AMENDED] Federal List of Endangered and 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not Threatened Wildlife relieves Federal be prepared in connection with agencies from the need to consult with ■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 regulations pursuant to section 4(a) of us under section 7 of the Act to ensure continues to read as follows: the Act. We published a notice outlining that any action they authorize, fund, or our reasons for this determination in the Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– carry out is not likely to jeopardize the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise continued existence of this species. This (48 FR 49244). noted. final rule also revises 50 CFR 17.95(e) by removing the designated critical References Cited § 17.11 [Amended] habitat for Oregon chub throughout its A complete list of all references cited range. ■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by removing the in this final rule is available at http:// entry for ‘‘Chub, Oregon’’ under FISHES Required Determinations www.regulations.gov at Docket No. in the List of Endangered and FWS–R1–ES–2014–0002, or upon Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 Threatened Wildlife. request from the Oregon Fish and U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES). § 17.95 [Amended] This rule does not contain any new collections of information that require Authors ■ 3. Amend § 17.95(e) by removing the approval by the Office of Management The primary authors of this rule are entry for ‘‘Oregon Chub (Oregonichthys and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork staff members of the Service’s Oregon crameri)’’. Reduction Act. This rule will not Fish and Wildlife Office with assistance Dated: December 16, 2014. impose recordkeeping or reporting from ODFW staff (see ADDRESSES and Stephen Guertin, requirements on State or local FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). governments, individuals, businesses, or Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife organizations. An agency may not List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 Service. conduct or sponsor, and a person is not Endangered and threatened species, [FR Doc. 2015–02951 Filed 2–18–15; 8:45 am] required to respond to, a collection of Exports, Imports, Reporting and BILLING CODE 4310–55–P information unless it displays a recordkeeping requirements, currently valid OMB control number. Transportation.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:51 Feb 18, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\19FER3.SGM 19FER3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES