[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 10, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10412-10453]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-4528]



[[Page 10411]]

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

Part III





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 17



Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical 
Habitat for the Oregon Chub (Oregonichthys crameri); Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 10, 2009 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 10412]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[FWS-R1-ES-2009-0010; 92210-1117-000-B4]
RIN 1018-AV87


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of 
Critical Habitat for the Oregon Chub (Oregonichthys crameri)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
designate critical habitat for the Oregon chub (Oregonichthys crameri) 
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). In 
total, approximately 53 hectares (ha) (132 acres (ac)) fall within the 
boundaries of the proposed critical habitat designation. The proposed 
critical habitat is located in Benton, Lane, Linn, and Marion Counties, 
Oregon.

DATES: We will accept comments received on or before May 11, 2009. We 
must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at the address 
shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by April 24, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     U.S. Mail or Hand Delivery: U.S. mail or hand-delivery: 
Public Comments Processing, Attn: RIN 1018-AV87; Division of Policy and 
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax 
Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
    We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all comments on 
http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any 
personal information you provide us (see ``Public Comments'' section 
below for more information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Henson, State Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, 2600 SE 
98th Avenue, Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266 (telephone 503-231-6179; 
facsimile 503-231-6195). If you use a telecommunications device for the 
deaf (TDD) call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-
877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Comments

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request 
comments or suggestions on this proposed rule. We particularly seek 
comments concerning:
    1. The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as 
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.), including whether there are threats to the species from human 
activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase due to the 
designation, and whether the benefit of designation would outweigh 
threats to the species caused by the designation, such that the 
designation of critical habitat is prudent.
    2. Specific information on:
     The amount and distribution of habitat for the species 
included in this proposed rule;
     What areas occupied at the time of listing, and that 
contain features essential for the conservation of the species, we 
should include and why; and
     What areas not occupied at the time of listing are 
essential to the conservation of the species and why.
    3. Land use designations and current or planned activities in areas 
occupied by the species, and their possible impacts on the species and 
the proposed critical habitat.
    4. Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other potential 
impacts resulting from the proposed designation and, in particular, any 
impacts on small entities and the benefits of including or excluding 
areas that exhibit these impacts.
    5. Whether the benefits of excluding any particular area from 
critical habitat outweigh the benefits of including that area as 
critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, after considering 
the potential impacts and benefits of the proposed critical habitat 
designation.
    6. Special management considerations or protections that the 
proposed critical habitat may require.
    7. Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating 
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation 
and understanding, or to better accommodate concerns and comments.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not 
consider comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in 
the ADDRESSES section.
    If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire 
comment--including any personal identifying information--will be posted 
on the Web site. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes 
personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your 
document that we withhold this information from public review. However, 
we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all 
hardcopy comments on http://www.regulations.gov.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection at http://www.regulations.gov, or by 
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).
    You may obtain copies of the proposed rule by mail from the Oregon 
Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) or by 
visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.

Background

    It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to 
the designation of critical habitat in this proposed rule. For a more 
complete discussion of the ecology and life history of this species, 
please see the Oregon Chub 5-year Review Summary and Evaluation 
completed February 11, 2008 (http://www.fws.gov/pacific/ecoservices/endangered/recovery/Documents/Oregonchub.pdf ).

Description and Taxonomy

    The Oregon chub (Oregonichthys crameri) was first described in 
scientific literature in 1908 (Snyder 1908, pp. 181-182), but it wasn't 
until 1991 that it was identified as a unique species (Markle et al. 
1991, pp. 284-289). Oregon chub have an olive-colored back (dorsum) 
grading to silver on the sides and white on the belly. Scales are 
relatively large with fewer than 40 occurring along the lateral line; 
scales near the back are outlined with dark pigment (Markle et al. 
1991, pp. 286-288). While young of the year range in length from 7 to 
32 millimeters (mm) (0.3 to 1.3 inches (in)), adults can be up to 90 mm 
(3.5 in) in length (Pearsons 1989, p. 17). The species is distinguished 
from its closest relative, the Umpqua chub (Oregonichthys kalawatseti), 
by Oregon chub's longer caudal peduncle (the narrow part of a fish's 
body to which the tail is attached), mostly scaled breast, and more 
terminal mouth position (Markle et al. 1991, p. 290).

[[Page 10413]]

Distribution and Habitat

    Oregon chub are found in slack-water, off-channel habitats with 
little or no flow, silty and organic substrate, and considerable 
aquatic vegetative cover for hiding and spawning (Pearsons 1989, p. 10; 
Markle et al. 1991, p. 288; Scheerer and Jones 1997, p. 5; Scheerer et 
al. 2007, p. 3). The species' aquatic habitat is typically at depths of 
less than or equal to 2 meters (m) (6.6 feet (ft)), and has a summer 
subsurface water temperature exceeding 15 [deg]Celsius ([deg]C) (61 
[deg]Fahrenheit ([deg]F)) (Scheerer and Apke 1997, p. 45; Scheerer 
2002, p. 1073; Scheerer and McDonald 2003, p. 69). Optimal Oregon chub 
habitat provides 1 square meter (m\2\) (11 square feet (ft\2\)) of 
aquatic surface area per adult, at depths between 0.5 m (1.6 ft) to 2 m 
(6.6 ft) (Scheerer 2008b). Oregon chub can be relatively long lived 
with males living up to 7 years and females up to 9 years, although 
less than 10 percent of fish in most Oregon chub populations are older 
than 3 years (Scheerer and McDonald 2003, p. 71). Outside of spawning 
season, the species is social and non-aggressive with fish of similar 
size classes schooling and feeding together (Pearsons 1989, pp. 16-17).
    The species is endemic to the Willamette River drainage of western 
Oregon (Markle et al. 1991, p. 288) and was formerly distributed 
throughout the Willamette River Valley in a dynamic network of off-
channel habitats such as beaver ponds, oxbows, side channels, backwater 
sloughs, low-gradient tributaries, and flooded marshes in the 
floodplain (Snyder 1908, p. 182). Records show Oregon chub were found 
as far downstream as Oregon City, as far upstream as Oakridge, and in 
various tributaries within the Willamette basin (Markle et al. 1991, p. 
288).
    Historically, Oregon chub would be dispersed and their habitat 
regularly altered, increased, or eliminated due to regular winter and 
spring flood events (Benner and Sedell 1997, pp. 27-28); this dispersal 
created opportunities for interbreeding between different populations. 
The installation of the flood control projects in the Willamette River 
basin altered the natural flow regime, and flooding no longer plays a 
positive role in creating Oregon chub habitat or providing 
opportunities for genetic mixing of populations. Flood events now 
threaten Oregon chub populations due to the dispersal of nonnative 
species that compete with or prey on Oregon chub. Whereas natural 
perturbations like floods often favor native species over nonnative 
species, human perturbations typically favor the nonnative species. In 
the Santiam River basin, the two largest natural populations of Oregon 
chub declined substantially after nonnative fishes invaded these 
habitat during the 1996 floods, and no new populations of Oregon chub 
were discovered in habitats located downstream of existing chub 
populations during thorough sampling in 1997-2000. This suggests that 
no successful colonization occurred as a result of the flooding event 
(Scheerer 2002, p. 1078).
    Currently, the largest populations of Oregon chub occur in 
locations with the highest diversity of native fish, amphibian, reptile 
and plant species (Scheerer and Apke 1998, p. 11). Beaver (Castor 
canadensis) appear to be especially important in creating and 
maintaining habitats that support these diverse native species 
assemblages (Scheerer and Apke 1998, p. 45). Conversely, the 
establishment and expansion of nonnative species in Oregon have 
contributed to the decline of the Oregon chub, limiting the species' 
ability to expand beyond its current range (Scheerer 2007, p. 92). Many 
sites formerly inhabited by the Oregon chub are now occupied by 
nonnative species (Scheerer et al. 2007, p. 9; Scheerer 2007a, p. 96). 
Sites with high connectivity to adjacent flowing water frequently 
contain nonnative predatory fishes and rarely contain Oregon chub 
(Scheerer 2007, p. 99). The presence of centrarchids (e.g., Micropterus 
sp. (largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, bluegill) and Pomoxis sp. 
(crappies)), and bullhead catfishes (Ameiurus sp.) is probably 
preventing Oregon chub from recolonizing suitable habitats throughout 
the basin (Markle et al. 1991, p. 291).
    Although surveys conducted by the Oregon Department of Fish and 
Wildlife (ODFW) prior to the 1993 listing of Oregon chub as endangered 
under the Act indicated the presence of the species at 17 different 
locations, the impacts of floodplain alteration and nonnative predators 
and competitors were clearly represented in the relatively small 
numbers of Oregon chub found at these sites. At the time of listing, 
these surveys were the best evidence of the then-current distribution 
of the species. Of these 17 sites, only 9 supported populations of 10 
or more Oregon chub, and all but 1 of those populations were found 
within a 30-kilometer (km) (19-mile (mi)) stretch of the Middle Fork 
Willamette River in the vicinity of Dexter and Lookout Point Reservoirs 
in Lane County, Oregon; this stretch represented just 2 percent of the 
species' historical range (58 FR 53800; October 18, 1993). Very small 
numbers of the species, between 1 and 7 individuals, were found at the 
remaining eight of the 17 sites at the time of listing. Currently, the 
distribution of Oregon chub is limited to 25 known naturally occurring 
populations and 11 reintroduced populations scattered throughout the 
Willamette Valley (Scheerer et al. 2007, p. 2; 2008a, p. 2).

Previous Federal Actions

     In 1993, we listed Oregon chub as endangered, in accordance with 
the Endangered Species Act (Act) (58 FR 53800; October 18, 1993). In 
that listing, we concluded that critical habitat was prudent but not 
determinable. A recovery plan for the Oregon chub was completed in 1998 
(USFWS 1998). The Oregon chub recovery plan established certain 
criteria for downlisting the species from endangered to threatened, 
which included establishing and managing 10 populations of at least 500 
adults each that exhibit a stable or increasing trend for 5 years. The 
recovery plan states that, for purposes of downlisting the species, at 
least three populations must be located in each of the three sub-basins 
of the Willamette River identified in the plan (Mainstem Willamette 
River, Middle Fork Willamette, and Santiam River). The recovery plan 
also established criteria for delisting the Oregon chub (i.e., removing 
it from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife). These include 
establishing and managing 20 populations of at least 500 adults each, 
which demonstrate a stable or increasing trend for 7 years. In 
addition, at least four populations must be located in each of the 
three sub-basins (Mainstem Willamette River, Middle Fork Willamette, 
and Santiam River). The management of these populations must be 
guaranteed in perpetuity.
    On March 9, 2007, the Institute for Wildlife Protection filed suit 
in Federal district court, alleging that the Service and the Secretary 
of the Interior violated their statutory duties as mandated by the Act 
when they failed to designate critical habitat for the Oregon chub and 
failed to perform a 5-year status review (Institute for Wildlife 
Protection v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). On March 8, 2007, we 
issued a notice that we would begin a status review of the Oregon chub 
(72 FR 10547). We completed the Oregon chub 5-Year Review on February 
11, 2008. In a settlement agreement with the Plaintiff, we agreed to 
submit a proposed critical habitat rule for Oregon chub to the Federal 
Register by March 1, 2009, and to submit a final critical habitat 
determination to the Federal Register by March 1, 2010.

[[Page 10414]]

    We have established two Safe Harbor Agreements (SHAs) for the 
Oregon chub; both in Lane County, Oregon, in 2001 (66 FR 30745; June 7, 
2001) and 2007 (72 FR 50976; September 5, 2007). These SHAs established 
new populations of Oregon chub in artificial ponds as refugia for 
natural populations, which contributes to the conservation of the 
species by reducing the risk of the complete loss of donor populations 
and any of their unique genetic material. The SHA policy was developed 
to encourage private and other non-Federal property owners to 
voluntarily undertake management activities on their property to 
enhance, restore, or maintain habitat to benefit federally listed 
species. SHAs provide assurances to property owners allowing 
alterations or modifications to enrolled property, even if such actions 
result in the incidental take of a listed species. For more information 
on previous Federal actions concerning the Oregon chub, refer to the 
Determination of Endangered Status for the Oregon Chub published in the 
Federal Register on October 18, 1993 (58 FR 53800) or the 1998 Recovery 
Plan for Oregon Chub (USFWS 1998).

Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
    1. The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a 
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which 
are found those physical or biological features
    a. Essential to the conservation of the species, and
    b. Which may require special management considerations or 
protection; and
    2. Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a 
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas 
are essential for the conservation of the species.
    Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means the use 
of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring any 
endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the 
measures provided under the Act are no longer necessary.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the prohibition against Federal agencies carrying out, funding, 
or authorizing activities that result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat. Section 7 of the Act requires 
consultation on Federal actions that may affect critical habitat. The 
designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership or 
establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other 
conservation area. Such designation does not allow government or public 
access to private lands. Such designation does not require 
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by the 
landowner. Where the landowner seeks or requests Federal agency funding 
or authorization of an activity that may affect a listed species or 
critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 7 would 
apply. However, even if a destruction or adverse modification finding 
were to be made, a landowner's obligation would not be to restore or 
recover the species, but rather, to implement reasonable and prudent 
alternatives to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat in order to receive the federal agency funding or 
authorization.
    For inclusion in a critical habitat designation, habitat within the 
geographic area occupied by the species at the time it was listed must 
contain the physical and biological features that are essential to the 
conservation of the species. Critical habitat designations identify, to 
the extent known using the best scientific data available, habitat 
areas that provide essential life cycle needs of the species (areas on 
which are found the primary constituent elements, as defined at 50 CFR 
424.12(b)). Occupied habitat that contains features essential to the 
conservation of the species meets the definition of critical habitat 
only if those features may require special management considerations or 
protection. Under the Act, we can designate areas that were unoccupied 
at the time of listing as critical habitat only when we determine that 
the best available scientific data demonstrate that the designation of 
that area is essential to the conservation of the species. When the 
best available scientific data do not demonstrate that the conservation 
needs of the species require such additional areas, we will not 
designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical area 
occupied by the species at the time of listing. An area currently 
occupied by the species but that was not occupied at the time of 
listing may, however, be essential to the conservation of the species 
and may be included in the critical habitat designation.
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on 
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on 
Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act, published in 
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271), and Section 515 of 
the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 
2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658) and the associated Information 
Quality Guidelines issued by the Service, provide criteria, and 
establish procedures and guidelines to ensure that decisions made by 
the Service represent the best scientific data available. They require 
Service biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the 
use of the best scientific data available, to use primary and original 
sources of information as the basis for recommendations to designate 
critical habitat.
    When we are determining which areas should be proposed as critical 
habitat, our primary source of information is generally the information 
developed during the listing process for the species. Additional 
information sources may include the recovery plan for the species, 
articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans developed by 
States and counties, scientific status surveys and studies, biological 
assessments, or other unpublished materials and expert opinion or 
personal knowledge.
    Habitat is often dynamic, and species may move from one area to 
another over time. Furthermore, we recognize that designation of 
critical habitat may not include all of the habitat areas that we may 
eventually determine are necessary for the recovery of the species, 
based on scientific data not now available to the Service. For these 
reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that habitat 
outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be required for 
recovery of the species.
    Areas that support populations, but are outside the critical 
habitat designation, may continue to be subject to conservation actions 
we implement under section 7(a)(1) of the Act. They are also subject to 
the regulatory protections afforded by the Section 7(a)(2) jeopardy 
standard, as determined on the basis of the best scientific information 
at the time of the agency action. Federally funded or permitted 
projects affecting listed species outside their designated critical 
habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some cases. 
Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of the best 
available information at the time of designation will not control the 
direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation 
plans (HCPs), or other species conservation planning efforts if new 
information available to these planning efforts calls for a different 
outcome.

Methods

    As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best 
scientific data

[[Page 10415]]

available in determining areas that contain the features that are 
essential to the conservation of the Oregon chub. Data sources include 
research published in peer-reviewed articles; previous Service 
documents on the species, including the final listing determination (58 
FR 53800; October 18, 1993) and the Recovery Plan for the Oregon chub 
(USFWS 1998); and annual surveys conducted by the ODFW (1992 through 
2008, as summarized in Scheerer et al. 2007 and Scheerer 2008a). 
Additionally we utilized regional Geographic Information System (GIS) 
shape files for area calculations and mapping.

Primary Constituent Elements

    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 
50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas occupied at the time of 
listing to propose as critical habitat, we consider the physical and 
biological features that are essential to the conservation of the 
species and that may require special management considerations or 
protection. These features are the primary constituent elements (PCEs) 
laid out in the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement for 
conservation of the species. These include, but are not limited to:
    1. Space for individual and population growth and for normal 
behavior;
    2. Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or 
physiological requirements;
    3. Cover or shelter;
    4. Sites for breeding, reproduction, and rearing (or development) 
of offspring; and
    5. Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are 
representative of the historical geographical and ecological 
distributions of a species.
    We derive the specific PCEs required for the Oregon chub from the 
biological needs of the species as described in the Background section 
of this proposed rule and the following information.

Space for Individual and Population Growth and Normal Behavior

Flow Velocities and Depth
    Oregon chub habitats are typically slack-water off-channel water 
bodies with little or no flow, such as beaver ponds, oxbows, side 
channels, backwater sloughs, low-gradient tributaries (less than 2.5 
percent gradient) and flooded marshes (Pearsons 1989, p. 30-31; Markle 
et al. 1991, pp. 288-289; Scheerer et al. 2007, p. 3; Scheerer 2008e). 
The species' swimming ability has been described as poor, and it is 
believed that no or low flow velocity water optimizes the energy 
expenditure of these slow fish (Pearsons 1989, p. 30-31). Although 
Oregon chub habitat may contain water of somewhat greater depth, the 
species mainly occupies water depths between approximately 0.5-2.0 m 
(1.6-6.6 ft). In order for a habitat to provide enough space to allow 
normal behavior for a population of 500 or more individuals, the water 
body needs to include approximately 500 square meters (m\2\ ) (0.12 ac) 
or more of aquatic surface area between 0.5-2.0 m (1.6-6.6 ft) deep. 
(Scheerer 2008b).

Cover

    The species' habitat preference varies depending on lifestage and 
season, but all Oregon chub require considerable aquatic vegetation for 
hiding and spawning activities (Pearsons 1989, p. 22; Markle et al. 
1991, p. 290; Scheerer and Jones 1997, p. 5; Scheerer et al. 2007, p. 
3). A minimum of 250 m\2\ (0.06 ac) (or between approximately 25 and 
100 percent of the total surface area of the habitat) to be covered 
with aquatic vegetation is needed to provide life-history requirements 
for a population of 500 Oregon chub (Scheerer 2008e). Aquatic plant 
communities within Oregon chub habitat include, but are not limited to, 
both native and nonnative species, including:
    1. Emergent vegetation: Carex spp. (sedge); Eleocharis spp. 
(spikerush); Scirpus spp. (bulrush); Juncus spp. (rush); Alisma spp. 
(water plantain); Polygyonum spp. (knotweed); Ludwigia spp. (primrose-
willow); Salix spp. (willow); Sparganium spp. (bur-reed); and Typha 
spp. (cattail).
    2. Partly submerged/emergent vegetation: Ranunculus spp. 
(buttercup).
    3. Floating/submerged vegetation: Azolla spp. (mosquitofern); 
Callitriche sp. (water-starwort); Ceratophyllum sp. (hornwort); Elodea 
spp. (water weed); Fontinalis spp. (fontinalis moss); Lemna spp. 
(duckweed); Myriophyllum spp. (parrot feather); Nuphar spp. (pond-
lily); and Potamogeton spp. (pondweed) (Scheerer 2008c).
    Oregon chub in similar size classes school and feed together. 
Larval Oregon chub congregate in the upper layers of the water column, 
especially in shallow, near-shore areas. Juvenile Oregon chub venture 
farther from shore into deeper areas of the water column. Adult Oregon 
chub seek dense vegetation for cover and frequently travel in the mid-
water column in beaver channels or along the margins of aquatic plant 
beds. In the early spring, Oregon chub are most active in the warmer, 
shallow areas of the ponds (Pearsons 1989, pp. 16-17; USFWS 1998, p. 
10).

Substrates

    Because Oregon chub habitat is characterized by little or no water 
flow, resulting substrates are typically composed of silty and organic 
material. In winter months, Oregon chub of various life stages can be 
found buried in the detritus or concealed in aquatic vegetation 
(Pearsons 1989, p. 16). Females prefer a highly organic, vegetative 
substrate for spawning and will lay their adhesive eggs directly on the 
submerged vegetation (Pearsons 1989, p. 17, 23; Markle et al. 1991. p. 
290; Scheerer 2007b, p. 494).

Food

    Known as obligatory sight feeders (Davis and Miller 1967, p. 32), 
Oregon chub feed throughout the day and stop feeding after dusk 
(Pearsons 1989, p. 23). The fish feed mostly on water column fauna, 
especially invertebrates that live in dense aquatic vegetation. Markle 
et al. (1991, p. 288) found that the diet of Oregon chub adults 
consisted primarily of minute crustaceans including copepods, 
cladocerans, and chironomid larvae. The diet of juveniles also consists 
of minute organisms such as rotifers, copepods, and cladocerans 
(Pearsons 1989, p. 41-42).

Water Quality

    With respect to water quality, the temperature regime at a site may 
determine the productivity of Oregon chub at that location. Spawning 
activity for the species has been observed from May through early 
August when subsurface water temperatures exceed 15 [deg]C (59 [deg]F) 
or 16 [deg]C (61 [deg]F) (Scheerer and Apke 1997, p. 22; Markle et al. 
1991, p. 288; Scheerer and MacDonald 2003, p. 78). The species will 
display normal life-history behavior at temperatures between 
approximately 15 and 25 [deg]C (59 and 77 [deg]F). The upper lethal 
temperature for the fish was determined to be 31 [deg]C (88 [deg]F) in 
laboratory studies (Scheerer and Apke 1997, p. 22).
    Optimal Oregon chub habitat contains water with dissolved oxygen 
levels greater than 3 parts per million (ppm), and an absence of 
contaminants such as copper, arsenic, mercury, and cadmium; human and 
animal waste products; pesticides; nitrogen and phosphorous 
fertilizers; and gasoline or diesel fuels. However, the species habitat 
is also characterized by high primary productivity and frequent algal 
blooms that might cause natural variability in water quality, 
especially dissolved oxygen levels (Scheerer and Apke 1997,

[[Page 10416]]

p. 15). Optimal Oregon chub habitat includes water dominated by fine 
substrates, but protected from excessive sedimentation. When excessive 
sediment is deposited, surface area can be lost as the sediment begins 
to displace open water. The resulting succession of open water habitat 
to wet meadow is detrimental to Oregon chub populations (Scheerer 
2008c).
    The water quality in the habitats of many known extant Oregon chub 
populations is threatened due to their proximity to areas of human 
activity. Many of the known extant populations of Oregon chub occur 
near rail, highway, and power transmission corridors and within public 
park and campground facilities. These populations may be threatened by 
chemical spills from overturned truck or rail tankers; runoff or 
accidental spills of vegetation control chemicals; overflow from 
chemical toilets in campgrounds; sedimentation of shallow habitats from 
construction activities; and changes in water level or flow conditions 
from construction, diversions, or natural desiccation. Oregon chub 
populations near agricultural areas are subject to poor water quality 
as a result of runoff laden with sediment, pesticides, and nutrients. 
Logging in the watershed can result in increased sedimentation and 
herbicide runoff (USFWS 1998, p. 14).

Reproduction and Rearing of Offspring

    Although most mature Oregon chub are found to be greater than or 
equal to 2 years old, maturity appears to be mainly size- rather than 
age-dependent (Scheerer and McDonald 2003, p. 78). Males over 35 mm 
(1.4 in) have been observed exhibiting spawning behavior. Oregon chub 
spawn from April through September, when temperatures exceed 15 [deg]C 
(59 [deg]F), with peak activity in July. Approximately 150 to 650 eggs 
will be released per spawning event, hatching within 10 to 14 days. As 
described above, females prefer a highly organic, vegetative substrate 
for spawning and will lay their adhesive eggs directly on the submerged 
vegetation (Pearsons 1989, p. 17, 23; Markle et al. 1992, p. 290; 
Scheerer 2007b, p. 494). Larvae and juveniles seek dense cover in 
shallow, warmer regions of off-channel habitats (Pearsons 1989, p. 17; 
Scheerer 2007b, p. 494).

Habitats Protected From Disturbance

Nonnative Fish
    Many species of nonnative fish that compete with or prey upon 
Oregon chub have been introduced and are common throughout the 
Willamette Valley, including largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), 
smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui), crappie (Pomoxis sp.), 
bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), and western mosquitofish (Gambusia 
affinis). Of the 747 Willamette Valley sites sampled for Oregon chub by 
ODFW since the beginning of annual survey efforts by the agency in 
1991, 42 percent contained nonnative fish. Most of the habitats 
surveyed that supported large populations of Oregon chub had no 
evidence of nonnative fish presence (Scheerer 2002, p. 1078; Scheerer 
2007a, p. 96; Scheerer et al. 2007, p. 14). The presence of nonnative 
fish in the Willamette Valley, especially centrarchids (e.g., basses 
and crappie) and ictalurids (catfishes) is suspected to be a major 
factor in the decline of Oregon chub and the biggest threat to the 
species' recovery (Markle et al. 1991, p. 291; Scheerer 2002, p. 1078; 
Scheerer et al. 2007, p. 18).
    Specific interactions responsible for the exclusion of Oregon chub 
from habitats dominated by nonnative fish are not clear in all cases. 
While information confirming the presence of Oregon chub in stomach 
contents of predatory fish is lacking, many nonnative fish, 
particularly adult centrarchids and ictalurids are documented 
piscivores (fish eaters) (Moyle 2002, pp. 397, 399, 403; Wydoski and 
Whitney 2003, pp. 125, 128, 130; Li et al. 1987, pp. 198-201). These 
fish are frequently the dominant inhabitants of ponds and sloughs 
within the Willamette River drainage and may constitute a major 
obstacle to Oregon chub recolonization efforts. Nonnative fish may also 
serve as sources of parasites and diseases; however, disease and 
parasite problems have not been studied in the Oregon chub.
    Observed feeding strategies and diet of introduced fish, 
particularly juvenile centrarchids and adult mosquitofish (Li et al. 
1987, pp. 198-201), often overlap with diet and feeding strategies 
described for Oregon chub (Pearsons 1989, pp. 34-35). This suggests 
that direct competition for food between Oregon chub and introduced 
species may further impede species survival as well as recovery 
efforts. The rarity of finding Oregon chub in waters also inhabited by 
mosquitofish may reflect many negative interactions, including but not 
limited to food-based competition, aggressive spatial exclusion, and 
predation on eggs and larvae (Meffe 1983, pp. 316, 319; 1984, pp. 
1,530-1,531). Because many remaining population sites are easily 
accessible, there continues to be a potential for unauthorized 
introductions of nonnative fish, particularly mosquitofish and game 
fish such as bass and walleye (Stizostedion vitreurn).
    The bullfrog (Rana catesbiana), a nonnative amphibian, also occurs 
in the valley and breeds in habitats preferred by the Oregon chub (Bury 
and Whelan 1984, pp. 2-3; Scheerer 1999, p. 7). Adult bullfrogs prefer 
habitat similar in characteristics (i.e., little to no water velocity, 
abundant aquatic and emergent vegetation) to the preferred habitat for 
Oregon chub, and are known to consume small fish as part of their diet 
(Cohen and Howard 1958, p. 225; Bury and Whelan 1984, p. 3), but it is 
unclear if they have a negative impact on Oregon chub populations, as 
several sites that have large numbers of bullfrogs also maintain robust 
Oregon chub populations (Scheerer 2008d).

Flood Control

    Major alteration of the Willamette River for flood control and 
navigation improvements has eliminated most of the river's historical 
floodplain, impairing or eliminating the environmental conditions in 
which the Oregon chub evolved. The decline of Oregon chub has been 
correlated with the construction of these projects based on the date of 
last capture at a site (58 FR 53801; October 18, 1993). Pearsons (1989, 
pp. 32-33) estimated that the most severe decline occurred during the 
1950s and 1960s when 8 of 11 flood control projects in the Willamette 
River drainage were completed (USACE 1970, pp. 219-237). Other 
structural changes along the Willamette River corridor such as 
revetment and channelization, dike construction and drainage, and the 
removal of floodplain vegetation have eliminated or altered the slack 
water habitats of the Oregon chub (Willamette Basin Task Force 1969, 
pp. I9, II22-II24; Hjort et al. 1984, pp. 67-68, 73; Sedell and 
Froggatt 1984 pp. 1,832-1,833; Li et al. 1987, p. 201). Management of 
water bodies (such as reservoirs) adjacent to occupied Oregon chub 
habitat continues to impact the species by causing fluctuations in the 
water levels of their habitat such that it may exceed or drop below 
optimal water depths.

Primary Constituent Elements for the Oregon Chub

    Pursuant to our regulations, we are required to identify the known 
physical and biological features, called primary constituent elements 
(PCEs), essential to the conservation of the Oregon chub and which may 
require special management considerations or protections. All areas 
proposed as critical habitat for Oregon chub are either occupied or 
within the species' historical geographic range.

[[Page 10417]]

    Based on the above needs and our current knowledge of the life 
history, biology, and ecology of the species and the characteristics of 
the habitat necessary to sustain the essential life-history functions 
of the species, we have identified four PCEs for Oregon chub critical 
habitat:
    1. Off-channel water bodies such as beaver ponds, oxbows, side-
channels, stable backwater sloughs, low-gradient tributaries, and 
flooded marshes, including at least 500 continuous square meters (5,400 
square feet) of aquatic surface area at depths between approximately 
0.5 and 2.0 m (1.6 and 6.6 ft).
    2. Aquatic vegetation covering a minimum of 250 m\2\ (0.06 ac) (or 
between approximately 25 and 100 percent) of the total surface area of 
the habitat. This vegetation is primarily submergent for purposes of 
spawning, but also includes emergent and floating vegetation, and algae 
which is important for cover throughout the year. Areas with sufficient 
vegetation are likely to also have the following characteristics:
     Gradient less than 2.5 percent;
     No or very low water velocity in late spring and summer;
     Silty, organic substrate; and
     Abundant minute organisms such as rotifers, copepods, 
cladocerans, and chironomid larvae.
    3. Late spring and summer subsurface water temperatures between 15 
and 25 [deg]C (59 and 78 [deg]F), with natural diurnal and seasonal 
variation.
    4. No or negligible levels of nonnative aquatic predatory or 
competitive species. Negligible is defined for the purpose of this 
proposed rule as a minimal level of nonnative species that will still 
allow the Oregon chub to continue to survive and recover.
    The need for space for individual and population growth and normal 
behavior is met by PCE (1); areas for reproduction, shelter, food, and 
habitat for prey are provided by PCE (2); optimal physiological 
processes for spawning and survival are ensured by PCE (3); habitat 
free from disturbance and, therefore, sufficient reproduction and 
survival opportunities is provided by PCE (4).
    This proposed designation is designed for the conservation of PCEs 
necessary to support the life-history functions that were the basis for 
the proposal. Each of the areas proposed in this rule has been 
determined to contain sufficient PCEs to provide for one or more of the 
life-history functions of the Oregon chub. Specifically, these areas 
fall into two groups: areas occupied at time of listing containing PCEs 
sufficient for one or more life-history functions, and areas not 
occupied at time of listing but that are essential to the conservation 
of the species and that also contain PCEs for one or more life-history 
functions.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we use the best 
scientific data available in determining areas that contain the 
features that are essential to the conservation of the Oregon chub. The 
steps we followed in identifying critical habitat were:
    1. Our initial step in identifying critical habitat was to 
determine, in accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, the physical and biological habitat 
features (PCEs) that are essential to the conservation of the species 
as explained in the previous section.
    2. We then identified areas occupied by the Oregon chub at the time 
of listing. Of the 5 populations known at the time of the 1993 listing 
(58 FR 53801), and the 12 additional sites confirmed by post-listing 
survey data to be occupied with one or more Oregon chub at the time of 
listing, 10 still support Oregon chub (Scheerer et al. 2007, p. 2; 
Scheerer 2008a, p. 2) and contain at least one PCE.
    3. Since, based on the recovery plan criteria described above, we 
found that areas occupied at time of listing were not sufficient to 
conserve the species, the next step was the identification of any 
additional sites that were not occupied at the time of listing, but 
that are currently occupied and contain PCEs, and which may be 
essential for the conservation of the species. Surveys conducted in 
2007 and 2008 indicate that 15 additional sites are currently occupied 
with one or more Oregon chub (Scheerer et al. 2007, p. 2; Scheerer 
2008a, p. 2).
    4. Next we identified sites that support introduced populations 
that also contain the PCEs, and which may be essential for the 
conservation of the species, which resulted in 11 additional sites 
being identified (Scheerer et al. 2007, p. 2; Scheerer 2008a, p. 2). 
Collectively, the above efforts resulted in the identification of 36 
occupied sites that met the above criteria.
    5. Our final step was to evaluate the 36 occupied sites within the 
context of the 1998 Oregon Chub Recovery Plan, to determine which areas 
contained the physical and biological features in the amount and 
spatial configuration essential to the conservation of the species. 
This step involved the application of the following criteria:
     Sites that support large, stable populations: From the 
list of occupied sites that contain PCEs, we selected sites that 
support populations meeting the delisting population criteria outlined 
in the 1998 Recovery Plan (i.e., establishing 20 populations of at 
least 500 adults with a stable or increasing trend over seven years 
(USFWS 1998, p. 28)), and also sites that are likely to meet the 
delisting criteria in the near future. Of the 18 sites meeting this 
selection criterion, 9 sites were occupied at the time of listing:
    [cir] Unit 2B(5), Finley Gray Creek Swamp
    [cir] Unit 3B, Elijah Bristow State Park--Berry Slough
    [cir] Unit 3E, Dexter Reservoir RV Alcove--DEX3
    [cir] Unit 3F, Dexter Reservoir Alcove--PIT1
    [cir] Unit 3G, East Fork Minnow Creek Pond
    [cir] Unit 3H, Hospital Pond
    [cir] Unit 3I, Shady Dell Pond
    [cir] Unit 3J, Buckhead Creek, and
    [cir] Unit 3K, Wicopee Pond.
    Three other sites supported naturally occurring populations but 
were not occupied at the time of listing:
    [cir] Unit 1B(1), Geren Island North Channel
    [cir] Unit 1B(4), Gray Slough, and
    [cir] Unit 3D, Elijah Bristow State Park Island Pond.
    In addition, six sites supported introduced populations:
    [cir] Unit 1C, Foster Pullout Pond
    [cir] Unit 2A(1), Russell Pond
    [cir] Unit 2B(1), Ankeny Willow Marsh
    [cir] Unit 2B(2), Dunn Wetland
    [cir] Unit 2B(4), Finley Cheadle Pond, and
    [cir] Unit 3A, Fall Creek Spillway Ponds.
     Sites that are capable of supporting large populations: 
Because the 1998 Recovery Plan for Oregon chub calls for establishing 
and maintaining a minimum of 20 populations that meet the recovery 
criteria, we identified seven currently occupied sites not already 
selected under the first criterion (above) that have the greatest 
potential to contribute to the long-term conservation and recovery of 
the species. Sites meeting this selection criterion include five sites 
that support naturally occurring populations: Unit 1A, Santiam I-5 Side 
Channels; Unit 1B(2), Stayton Public Works Pond; Unit 2A(2), Shetzline 
Pond; Unit 2A(3), Big Island; and Unit 3C, Elijah Bristow State Park 
Northeast Slough. In addition two sites that support introduced 
populations met this criterion: Unit 1B(3), South Stayton Pond; and 
Unit 2B(3), Finley Display Pond. Each of these sites either currently, 
or in the past, has supported populations of over 500 adults.

[[Page 10418]]

     Sites representative of the geographic distribution of 
Oregon chub: The delisting criteria outlined in the 1998 Recovery Plan 
require that at least four populations be located in each of three sub-
basins. We determined that the 25 sites selected under the preceding 
critical habitat criteria also met this objective (USFWS 1998, p. 28). 
Six units are being proposed as critical habitat in the Santiam River 
watershed, 8 sites are being proposed as critical habitat in the 
Mainstem Willamette River watershed, and 11 sites are being proposed as 
critical habitat in the Middle Fork Willamette River watershed. By 
protecting a variety of habitats throughout the species' historical 
range, we increase the probability that the species can adjust in the 
future to various limiting factors that may affect the population, such 
as predators, disease, and flood events exceeding annual high water 
levels.
    Based on this analysis, we are proposing to designate 25 units as 
critical habitat. Although the 1998 recovery plan calls for 
establishing and maintaining a minimum of 20 populations, we believe 
that establishing additional populations will allow the Service to 
mitigate the potential that some units may become unable to support the 
species or primary constituent elements over time because of predation 
issues or other factors.
    After applying the above criteria, we mapped the critical habitat 
unit boundaries at each of these 25 sites. Mapping was completed using 
a Geographic Information System (GIS), and involved several steps. 
Critical habitat unit boundaries were delineated to encompass the 
extent of habitat containing the physical and biological features 
essential to the conservation of the species that may require special 
management considerations or protection. Polygon vertices (points where 
two lines meet) were collected along the annual high water mark at 
least every 30 meters (98 ft) around the perimeter of the site, and at 
a greater frequency in areas of complexity or where higher resolution 
was necessary. The full extent of each pond or slough was mapped; 
islands were mapped with the same method as the perimeter of the site. 
At sites where tributaries or channels entered or exited a site, only 
the extent of suitable Oregon chub habitat was mapped. The extent of 
chub use in open systems was defined by habitat features and by 
previous experience sampling in those areas. Habitat features that 
defined the limit of Oregon chub use in a channel included increased 
gradient, the absence of aquatic vegetation, and areas where gravel, 
cobble, or other large substrate was present. We combined the polygon 
data with information from aerial photos to determine the proposed 
critical habitat unit boundaries of each site.

Special Management Considerations or Protections

    The term critical habitat is defined in section 3(5)(A) of the Act, 
in part, as geographic areas on which are found those physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of the species and 
``which may require special management considerations or protections.'' 
Accordingly, in identifying critical habitat in occupied areas, we 
assess whether the primary constituent elements within the areas 
determined to be occupied at the time of listing may require any 
special management considerations or protections. Although the 
determination that special management may be required is not a 
prerequisite to designating critical habitat in areas essential to the 
conservation of the species that were unoccupied at the time of 
listing, all areas being proposed as critical habitat require some 
level of management to address current and future threats to the Oregon 
chub, to maintain or enhance the physical and biological features 
essential to its conservation, and to ensure the recovery and survival 
of the species.
    The primary threats impacting the physical and biological features 
essential to the conservation of the Oregon chub that may require 
special management considerations within the proposed critical habitat 
units include: Competition and predation by nonnative fish; the 
potential for initial or further introduction of nonnative fish; 
vegetative succession of shallow aquatic habitats; possible 
agricultural chemical runoff; possible excessive siltation from logging 
in the watershed; other threats to water quality (including threat of 
toxic spills, low dissolved oxygen); and fluctuations in water levels 
due to regulated flow management at flood control dams, as well as low 
summer water levels.
    Some additional threats to the continued survival and recovery of 
the Oregon chub, such as the potential for reduced genetic diversity 
due to the low level of mixing between populations, will likely be 
addressed by direct management of populations (e.g., translocation of 
individuals) rather than by management of the physical and biological 
features of the habitat. Such threats, therefore, are not addressed in 
this section specific to the special management required of the 
physical and biological features of the proposed critical habitat 
areas.
    Special management considerations or protections are needed in most 
of the units to address the impacts of competition and predation by 
nonnative fishes in Oregon chub habitat or to avoid the potential 
introduction of nonnative fishes into areas occupied by Oregon chub. 
Predatory nonnative fishes are considered the greatest current threat 
to the recovery of the Oregon chub. Management for the Oregon chub has 
focused on establishing secure, isolated habitats free of nonnative 
fishes. Nonnative fishes are abundant and ubiquitous in the Willamette 
River Basin, and monitoring and management are required to remove 
nonnative fishes from Oregon chub habitat when possible, and to protect 
Oregon chub populations that have not yet been affected by nonnative 
fishes from invasion.
    Special management is needed to reduce or eradicate the threat 
posed by nonnative fishes already present in the following proposed 
units:
     Unit 1A Santiam I-5 Side Channels
     Unit 1B(1) Geren Island North Channel
     Unit 1B(2) Stayton Public Works Pond
     Unit 1B(4) Gray Slough, Unit 2B(5) Finley Gray Creek Swamp
     Unit 3C Elijah Bristow State Park--NE Slough
     Unit 3D Elijah Bristow State Park Island Pond, and
     Unit 3F Dexter Reservoir Alcove--PIT1.
    Special management or protections are needed to prevent the 
introduction or further introduction of nonnative fishes into the 
following proposed units:
     Unit 1A Santiam I-5 Side channels
     Unit 1B(2) Stayton Public Works Pond
     Unit 1B(3) South Stayton Pond
     Unit 1B(4) Gray Slough
     Unit 1C Foster Pullout Pond
     Unit 2A(2) Shetzline Pond
     Unit 2A(3) Big Island
     Unit 2B(1) Ankeny Willow Marsh
     Unit 2B(3) Finley Display Pond
     Unit 2B(4) Finley Cheadle Pond
     Unit 2B(5) Finley Gray Creek Swamp
     Unit 3A Fall Creek Spillway Ponds
     Unit 3B Elijah Bristow State Park--Berry Slough
     Unit 3C Elijah Bristow State Park--Northeast Slough
     Unit 3D Elijah Bristow State Park Island Pond
     Unit 3E Dexter Reservoir RV Alcove--DEX3
     Unit 3F Dexter Reservoir Alcove--PIT1, Unit 3H Hospital 
Pond

[[Page 10419]]

     Unit 3I Shady Dell Pond, and
     Unit 3J Buckhead Creek.
    Although Oregon chub require some aquatic vegetation for cover and 
spawning, some areas of Oregon chub habitat are threatened by 
succession to wet meadow systems due to a lack of natural disturbance 
(such as floods) or excessive siltation. If vegetation completely fills 
in the open water areas of Oregon chub habitat, these areas are no 
longer suitable for the Oregon chub. Special management is required to 
prevent or set back vegetative succession in Unit 3G, East Fork Minnow 
Creek Pond, to alleviate this threat to the Oregon chub's aquatic 
habitat.
    Some units require special management to avoid the degradation of 
water quality in Oregon chub habitats due to agricultural chemical 
runoff. Elevated levels of nutrients and pesticides have been found in 
some Oregon chub habitats (Materna and Buck 2007, p. 67). The source of 
the contamination is likely agricultural runoff from adjacent farm 
fields (Materna and Buck 2007, p. 68). Special management will be 
needed to reduce the incursion of potentially hazardous agricultural 
chemicals into Oregon chub habitats and maintain water quality in Units 
1B(4) Gray Slough, Unit 2B(2) Dunn Wetland, and Unit 2B(4) Finley 
Cheadle Pond.
    Although Oregon chub utilize fine silty substrates, an 
overabundance of siltation resulting from activities such as logging 
poses a threat to Oregon chub habitat by filling in the shallow aquatic 
areas utilized by the species. Excess sedimentation can also lead to 
the succession of open water habitats to wet meadow, as discussed 
above. Special management to alleviate the threat posed by excess 
watershed siltation due to logging and other activities is needed in 
Unit 1B(1) Geren Island North Channel, Unit 2A(1) Russell Pond, Unit 
2B(5) Finley Gray Creek Swamp, Unit 3G East Fork Minnow Creek Pond, 
Unit 3J Buckhead Creek, and Unit 3K Wicopee Pond.
    Special management is required in several of the proposed critical 
habitat units to maintain the water quality required by Oregon chub and 
protect against the impacts of several potential threats to water 
quality. Many Oregon chub populations occur near rail, highway, and 
power transmission corridors, agricultural fields, and within public 
park and campground facilities, and there is concern that these 
populations could be threatened by chemical spills, runoff, or changes 
in water level or flow conditions caused by construction, diversions, 
or natural desiccation (58 FR 53800, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
1998, p. 14). Water quality investigations at sites in the Middle Fork 
and Mainstem Willamette subbasins have found some adverse effects to 
Oregon chub habitats caused by changes in nutrient levels. Elevated 
nutrient levels at some Oregon chub locations, particularly increased 
nitrogen and phosphorus, may result in eutrophication and associated 
anoxic conditions unsuitable for chub, or increased plant and algal 
growth that severely reduce habitat availability (Buck 2003, p. 12). 
Monitoring and special management are needed to ameliorate the effects 
of excessive nutrient levels in Oregon chub habitats, as well as 
provide protection against accidental sources of contamination to the 
extent possible, in the following units:
     Unit 1A Santiam I-5 Side Channels
     Unit 2B(5) Finley Gray Creek Swamp
     Unit 3E Dexter Reservoir RV Alcove--DEX3
     Unit 3F Dexter Reservoir Alcove--PIT1
     Unit 3G East Fork Minnow Creek Pond
     Unit 3H Hospital Pond
     Unit 3I Shady Dell Pond, and
     Unit 3J Buckhead Creek.
    Although the Oregon chub evolved in a dynamic environment in which 
frequent flooding continually created and reconnected habitat for the 
species, currently most populations of Oregon chub are isolated from 
each other due to the reduced frequency and magnitude of flood events 
and the presence of migration barriers such as impassable culverts and 
beaver dams (Scheerer et al. 2007, p. 9). Historically, regulated flow 
management of flood control dams eliminated many of the slough and side 
channel habitats utilized by Oregon chub by reducing the magnitude, 
extent, and frequency of flood events in the Willamette River Basin. 
Currently, flow management activities impact Oregon chub in many of 
their remaining habitats by inadvertently raising or lowering the depth 
of water bodies to levels above or below the optimum for the species. 
Water depths in the summer may be reduced to levels that threaten the 
survival of Oregon chub due to flow management in adjacent reservoirs 
or rivers, or from natural drought cycles. Special management is 
required to ameliorate the effects of fluctuating or reduced water 
levels for the Oregon chub in:
     Unit 1A Santiam I-5 Side Channels
     Unit 1B(1) Geren Island North Channel
     Unit 1B(2) Stayton Public Works Pond
     Unit 1B(4) Gray Slough
     Unit 2A(3) Big Island
     Unit 2B(5) Finley Gray Creek Swamp
     Unit 3A Fall Creek Spillway Ponds
     Unit 3C Elijah Bristow State Park--Northeast Slough
     Unit 3D Elijah Bristow State Park Island Pond
     Unit 3E Dexter Reservoir RV Alcove--DEX3
     Unit 3F Dexter Reservoir Alcove--PIT1, and
     Unit 3I Shady Dell Pond.
    In summary, we find that each of the areas we are proposing as 
critical habitat contains features essential to the conservation of the 
Oregon chub, and that these features may require special management 
considerations or protection. These special management considerations 
and protections are required to eliminate, or reduce to a negligible 
level, the threats affecting each unit and to preserve and maintain the 
essential features that the proposed critical habitat units provide to 
the Oregon chub. A more comprehensive discussion of threats facing 
individual sites is in the individual unit descriptions.
    The designation of critical habitat does not imply that lands 
outside of critical habitat do not play an important role in the 
conservation of the Oregon chub. Federal activities that may affect 
those unprotected areas outside of critical habitat are still subject 
to review under section 7 of the Act if they may affect Oregon chub. 
The prohibitions of section 9 against the take of listed species also 
continue to apply both inside and outside of designated critical 
habitat. Take is broadly defined in the Act as to harass, harm, wound, 
kill, trap, capture, or collect a listed species, or to attempt to 
engage in any such conduct.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

    The areas we are proposing as critical habitat currently provide 
all habitat components necessary to meet the primary biological needs 
of the Oregon chub, as defined by the primary constituent elements. The 
areas proposed for designation are those areas most likely to 
substantially contribute to conservation of the Oregon chub, and when 
combined with future management of certain habitats suitable for 
restoration efforts, will contribute to the long-term survival and 
recovery of the species.
    Under the Act, we can designate critical habitat in areas outside 
of the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is 
listed only when

[[Page 10420]]

(1) the inclusion of specific areas occupied at the time of listing 
defined by the essential physical and biological factors are not 
sufficient to conserve the species; and (2) we determine that those 
areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species are 
essential for the conservation of the species.
    We have determined that 25 units totaling approximately 53 ha (132 
acres) meet our definition of critical habitat for the Oregon chub, 
including land under State, Federal, other government, and private 
ownership. Nine of the critical habitat units described below 
constitute our best assessment of areas determined to be occupied at 
the time of listing that contain the primary constituent elements and 
require special management (units 2B(5), 3B, 3E, 3F, 3G, 3H, 3I, 3J, 
3K). Because the nine occupied units do not alone contain physical and 
biological features sufficient to conserve the species, we are 
proposing an additional 16 units. The other 16 proposed units 
constitute our best assessment of areas that were not occupied or not 
known to be occupied at the time of listing but were within the 
species' historical range, which were found to be essential to the 
conservation of the Oregon chub. These additional areas include natural 
and introduced populations. The Critical Habitat Selection Criteria and 
Special Management Considerations or Protections sections above address 
why the inclusion of specific areas occupied at the time of listing 
defined by the essential physical and biological factors are not 
sufficient to conserve the species; and, for the additional 16 proposed 
units, why we determine that those areas outside the geographical area 
occupied by the species are essential for the conservation of the 
species.
Area 1: Santiam River Basin--Linn and Marion Counties, Oregon
A. Mainstem
    Unit 1A, the Santiam I-5 Side Channels: This site consists of three 
ponds totaling 1.4 ha (3.3 ac), located on a 27-ha (66-ac) property on 
the south side of the Santiam River upstream of the Interstate Highway 
5 bridge crossing in Linn County, Oregon. The areas containing Oregon 
chub include a small backwater pool, a gravel pit, and a side channel 
pond. This unit is owned by the Oregon Department of Transportation 
(ODOT) and Oregon chub were first observed here in 1997. Although only 
22 Oregon chub were counted at the site in 2007, the habitat contains 3 
of the 4 PCEs and has exhibited capability of supporting a substantial 
population of the species based on past survey population estimates of 
over 500 individuals. The maximum water depth is approximately 3 m (9.8 
ft), averaging 1.5 m (4.9 ft), and the temperature was recorded at 
between 19.5 and 21 [deg]C (60 and 67 [deg]F) on July 30, 2008. The 
substrate is composed of 80 percent silt and organic material, and 
there is a variety of emergent and submergent vegetation covering 65 
percent of the surface area. Beaver have been observed at this 
location. This site is at risk of the vegetation expanding to levels 
detrimental to Oregon chub habitat. The site is periodically connected 
to the Santiam River, and its water levels can be affected by 
hydrologic changes in the river, particularly the low summer levels 
common in the drainage. Competing and predatory nonnative species have 
been observed; nonnative predators are suspected to be a major factor 
in the drop in Oregon chub population estimates at this site between 
the 2006 and 2007 surveys (Scheerer 2008d).
B. North
    Unit 1B(1), Geren Island North Channel: This site totals 
approximately 0.8 ha (1.9 ac) and is located on the grounds of a water 
treatment facility owned by the City of Salem in Marion County, Oregon. 
The species was first observed at this site in 1996. Although only 207 
Oregon chub were counted at the site in 2008, the habitat contains 3 of 
the 4 PCEs and has exhibited capability of supporting a substantial 
population of the species based on past survey population estimates of 
over 500 individuals. The maximum water depth is 2.2 m (7.2 ft), 
averaging 1.8 m (5.9 ft), and the temperature was recorded at 26 [deg]C 
(79 [deg]F) on July 10, 2008. The substrate is composed of 90 percent 
silt and organic material, and there is a variety of emergent and 
submergent vegetation covering 65 percent of the surface area. Beaver 
have been observed at this location. The site is screened and isolated 
from other water bodies, but water levels are influenced through water 
releases at Detroit and Big Cliff Dams. Competing and predatory 
nonnative species have been observed at the site. There is also a risk 
of excess sedimentation due to logging in the watershed.
    Unit 1B(2), the Stayton Public Works Pond: This site totals 
approximately 0.4 ha (1.0 ac) and is located in and owned by the City 
of Stayton, in Marion County, Oregon. The species was first observed at 
this location in 1998. Although only 68 Oregon chub were counted at the 
site in 2008, the habitat contains 3 of the 4 PCEs and has exhibited 
capability of supporting a substantial population of the species based 
on past survey population estimates of over 500 individuals. The 
maximum water depth is 2 m (6.6 ft) deep, averaging 1.2 m (3.9 ft), and 
the temperature was recorded at 25.5 [deg]C (77.9 [deg]F) on July 9, 
2008. The substrate is composed of 90 percent silt and organic 
material, and there is a variety of emergent and submergent vegetation 
covering 100 percent of the surface area. Beaver have also been 
observed at this location. The site is periodically connected to the 
North Santiam River and is therefore at risk of low summer water levels 
and nonnative fish introduction. Competing and predatory nonnative 
species have been observed at this site.
    Unit 1B(3), South Stayton Pond: This site totals approximately 0.1 
ha (0.2 ac), is located in Linn County, Oregon, and is owned by the 
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). This site was the 
location of a 2006 introduction of 54 Oregon chub and a supplemental 
2007 introduction of 67 additional individuals. The population is 
currently estimated at 1,705 individuals and appears to be stable or 
increasing. The habitat contains all of the PCEs. The maximum water 
depth is 1.6 m (5.3 ft), averaging 0.9 m (3 ft), and the temperature 
was recorded at 24.5 [deg]C (76.1 [deg]F) on July 9, 2008. The 
substrate is composed of 90 percent silt and organic material, and 
there is a variety of emergent and submergent vegetation covering 100 
percent of the surface area. The site is isolated from other water 
bodies and currently has no competing or predatory nonnative species. 
Because of the easy public access to the site, it may be at risk of 
illegal introduction of nonnative fish.
    Unit 1B(4), Gray Slough: This privately owned site totals 
approximately 2.5 ha (6.2 ac) and is in Marion County, Oregon. The 
species was first observed at this site in 1995. The population is 
currently estimated at 655 individuals, has been stable for 5 years, 
and the habitat contains 3 of the 4 PCEs. The maximum water depth is 
2.5 m (8.2 ft), averaging 1.2 m (3.9 ft), and the temperature was 
recorded at 23.5 [deg]C (74.3 [deg]F) on July 31, 2008. The substrate 
is composed of 100 percent silt and organic material, and there is a 
variety of emergent and submergent vegetation covering 55 percent of 
the surface area. Beaver, and also competing or predatory nonnative 
fish species, have been observed at this location. The site is 
periodically connected to the North Santiam River and is therefore at 
risk of low summer water levels and additional nonnative fish invasion. 
The

[[Page 10421]]

site's location on a property with agricultural activity places it at 
risk of chemical runoff.
C. South
    Unit 1C, Foster Pullout Pond: This site totals 0.4 ha (1.0 ac), and 
is owned by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The pond 
is located in Linn County, Oregon, on the north shore of Foster 
Reservoir in the South Santiam River drainage. The pond is perched 
several meters above the reservoir full pool level, is spring-fed, and 
the water level is maintained by a beaver dam at the outflow. This site 
was the location of a 1999 introduction of 85 Oregon chub, and the 
population is currently estimated at 2,636 individuals. The population 
has been stable for 5 years, and the habitat contains all of the PCEs. 
The maximum water depth is 2.0 m (6.6 ft), averaging 1.2 m (3.9 ft), 
and the temperature was recorded at 21 [deg]C (70 [deg]F) on July 23, 
2008. The substrate is composed of 100 percent silt and organic 
material, and there is a variety of emergent and submergent vegetation 
covering 100 percent of the surface area. Beaver have been observed at 
this location. The site is isolated from other water bodies and has no 
competing or predatory nonnative species, but the site's accessibility 
to the public raises the risk of illegal introduction of nonnative 
fish.
Area 2: Mainstem Willamette River Basin-Benton, Lane and Marion 
Counties, Oregon
A. McKenzie River
    Unit 2A(1), Russell Pond: This privately owned site totals 
approximately 0.1 ha (0.1 ac) and is located in the Mohawk River 
drainage, Lane County, Oregon. In 2001, 350 Oregon chub were introduced 
into the pond, followed by an additional introduction of 150 
individuals in 2002 as part of a Safe Harbor Agreement with the 
Service. The population is currently estimated at 651 individuals, has 
been stable for 5 years, and the habitat contains all of the PCEs. The 
maximum water depth is 2 m (6.6 ft), averaging 1.5 m (4.9 ft), and the 
temperature was recorded at 18.5 [deg]C (65.3 [deg]F) on July 23, 2008. 
The substrate is composed of 100 percent silt and organic material, and 
there is a variety of emergent and submergent aquatic vegetation 
covering 40 percent of the surface area. The site is isolated from 
other water bodies, and has no competing or predatory nonnative 
species. Threats to the site include possible excess sedimentation 
resulting from logging in the watershed.
    Unit 2A(2), Shetzline Pond: This privately owned site totals 
approximately 0.1 ha (0.3 ac), and is in the Mohawk River drainage, 
Lane County, Oregon. The species was first observed at this site in 
2002. The site originally consisted of three manmade ponds, one of 
which (the south pond) contained Oregon chub. A restoration project was 
conducted in 2006 in the north and middle ponds to connect the ponds 
and create a more natural wetland. Nonnative fish in these ponds were 
removed with a rotenone treatment. However, to date the restored 
wetland has not been connected to the Oregon chub pond, although the 
site has a small inflow channel connecting it to Drury Creek (a 
tributary of the Mohawk River). Although only 130 Oregon chub were 
counted at the site in 2008, the habitat contains all of the PCEs and 
has exhibited capability of supporting a substantial population of the 
species, based on past survey population estimates of over 500 
individuals. The maximum water depth is 2.5 m (8.2 ft), averaging 2 m 
(6.6 ft), and the temperature was recorded at 20 [deg]C (68 [deg]F) on 
July 23, 2008. The substrate is composed of 100 percent silt and 
organic material, and there is a variety of emergent, submergent, and 
floating aquatic vegetation covering 100 percent of the surface area. 
The site currently has no competing or predatory nonnative species but, 
because of previous fishing for nonnative species that was allowed in 
the ponds, the site is at risk of illegal introduction of nonnative 
fish.
    Unit 2A(3), Big Island: This site totals 3.3 ha (8.2 ac), is owned 
by the McKenzie River Trust, and is located along the McKenzie River in 
Lane County, Oregon. The species was first observed at this location in 
2002. Although only 200 Oregon chub were counted at the site in 2008, 
the habitat contains all of the PCEs and has exhibited capability of 
supporting a substantial population of Oregon chub based on past survey 
population estimates of over 500 individuals. The maximum depth is 1.5 
m (4.9 ft) deep, averaging 0.6 m (2.0 ft), and the temperature was 
recorded at 19 [deg]C (66 [deg]F) on July 23, 2008. The substrate is 
composed of 90 percent silt and organic material, and there is a 
variety of emergent, submergent, and floating aquatic vegetation 
covering 72 percent of the surface area. Beaver have been observed at 
this location. Because the site has annual connectivity to the McKenzie 
River, its water levels can be affected by hydrologic changes in the 
river and it is at risk of the introduction of nonnative fish. No 
competing or predatory nonnative species have been observed to date.
B. Willamette River Mainstem
    Unit 2B(1), Ankeny Willow Marsh: This site totals 14.0 ha (34.5 
ac), and is located in Marion County, Oregon at the Ankeny National 
Wildlife Refuge where an introduction of 500 Oregon chub took place in 
2004. The population is currently estimated at 36,455 individuals and 
has been increasing. The habitat also contains all of the PCEs. The 
maximum depth is 2 m (6.6 ft), averaging 0.7 m (2.3 ft), and the 
temperature at the site was recorded at 25 [deg]C (77 [deg]F) on July 
8, 2008. The substrate is composed of 100 percent silt and organic 
material and there is a variety of aquatic vegetation including 
emergent, submergent, floating and algae covering 100 percent of the 
surface area. Beaver and turtles have been observed at this location. 
Water is supplied to the pond from Sidney Ditch, which contains 
nonnative fish. The pump is screened, and the site currently has no 
competing or predatory nonnative species, although a high water event 
could foster the introduction of nonnative fish.
    Unit 2B(2), Dunn Wetland: This privately owned site in Benton 
County, Oregon, totals 6.1 ha (15.2 ac). In 1997, 200 Oregon chub were 
introduced to the site, followed by the introduction of 373 additional 
individuals in 1998 as part of a Safe Harbor Agreement with the 
Service. The owners restored the wetland in 1994 when a permanent (year 
round) spring-fed pond was constructed. Two additional permanent ponds 
were constructed in 1997 and 1999. The entire wetland floods during the 
winter, and the ponds are interconnected. The population is currently 
estimated at 34,530 individuals and has been stable for 5 years. The 
habitat contains all of the PCEs. The maximum depth is 1 m (3.3 ft), 
averaging 0.6 m (2.0 ft), and the temperature was recorded at 23 [deg]C 
(73 [deg]F) on July 28, 2008. The substrate is composed of 100 percent 
silt and organic material, and there is a variety of emergent and 
submergent aquatic vegetation covering 100 percent of the surface area. 
Beaver have been observed at this location. The site is isolated from 
other water bodies and has no competing or predatory nonnative species, 
but it is at risk of chemical runoff from agricultural activities.
    Unit 2B(3), Finley Display Pond: This site totals 1.0 ha (2.4 ac) 
and is located in Benton County, Oregon, on the William L. Finley 
National Wildlife Refuge. This unit was the subject of

[[Page 10422]]

several introductions of Oregon chub: 60 in 1998, 45 in 1999, 49 in 
2001, and 75 in 2007. The current population estimate of 832 
individuals along with past survey population estimates of over 500 
individuals establish the site's capability of supporting a substantial 
population of the species. The habitat contains all of the PCEs. The 
maximum depth is 2.5 m (8.2 ft), averaging 1.5 m (4.9 ft), and the 
temperature was recorded at 19 [deg]C (66 [deg]F) on June 20, 2008. The 
substrate is composed of 100 percent silt and organic material, and 
there is a variety of emergent and submergent aquatic vegetation 
covering 75 percent of the surface area. While this pond currently has 
no competing or predatory nonnative species, easy public access makes 
it vulnerable to illegal introductions of nonnative fish. Beaver have 
been observed at this location.
    Unit 2B(4), Finley Cheadle Pond: This site totals 0.9 ha (2.3 ac) 
and is located in Benton County, Oregon, on the William L. Finley 
National Wildlife Refuge. In 2002, 50 Oregon chub were introduced to 
this unit, followed by the introduction of 53 additional individuals in 
2007. The population is currently estimated at 3,519 individuals, has 
been stable or increasing for 5 years, and the habitat contains all of 
the PCEs. The maximum depth is 3.3 m (10.8 ft), averaging 1.5 m (4.9 
ft), and the temperature was recorded at 18.5 [deg]C (65.3 [deg]F) on 
June 20, 2008. The substrate is composed of 100% silt and organic 
material, and there is a variety of emergent and submergent aquatic 
vegetation covering 86 percent of the surface area. The site is 
isolated from other water bodies and has no competing or predatory 
nonnative species. Beaver have been observed at this location. The 
pond's proximity to agricultural areas puts it at risk of chemical 
runoff and easy public access makes it vulnerable to illegal 
introductions of nonnative fish.
    Unit 2B(5), Finley Gray Creek Swamp: This site totals 3.0 ha (7.4 
ac) and is located in Benton County, Oregon. Most of the unit is 
located on the southwest corner of the William L. Finley National 
Wildlife Refuge, however, a small portion of the unit is located on 
private property. The site was occupied by Oregon chub at the time of 
listing and the population is currently estimated at 2,141 individuals 
and has been stable for 5 years. The habitat contains 3 of the 4 PCEs. 
The maximum depth is 2.2 m (7.2 ft), averaging 1 m (3.3 ft), and the 
temperature was recorded at 22 [deg]C (72 [deg]F) on July 28, 2008. The 
substrate is composed of 100 percent silt and organic material, and 
there is a variety of emergent and submergent aquatic vegetation 
covering 100 percent of the surface area. Beaver have also been 
observed at this location. The site is periodically connected to other 
water bodies, and competing and predatory nonnative species have been 
observed. Gray Creek originates on the slopes west of Bellfountain 
Road, an area owned by private timber companies. The creek flows under 
Bellfountain Road onto Finley NWR where three dikes have been 
constructed to form Beaver Pond, Cattail Pond and Cabell Marsh. The 
waters of Gray Creek empty into Muddy Creek which drains into the 
Willamette River south of Corvallis. Extensive damming by beavers 
occurs between Bellfountain Road and the first dike at Beaver Pond, 
creating a narrow band of marsh habitat less than 1 mile in length, 
with a silty, detritus-laden substrate. The refuge boundary in this 
area is irregular, and portions of the marsh are within the refuge 
boundary while other portions are located on private land. Steep, 
forested slopes rise up on either side of the marsh; the north slope is 
refuge land, while a large portion of the southern slope is private 
land. The creek's location put the habitat at risk of excess 
sedimentation from logging activities and other water quality issues, 
including threat of spills and low dissolved oxygen.
Area 3: Middle Fork Willamette River Basin--Lane County, Oregon
    Unit 3A, Fall Creek Spillway Ponds: This site totals 1.5 ha (3.8 
ac), is owned by the USACE, and is the location of a 1996 introduction 
of 500 Oregon chub. The ponds, located in the overflow channel below 
Fall Creek Dam, were formed by beaver dams that blocked the spillway 
overflow channel. The current Oregon chub population estimate of 3,052 
individuals along with past survey population estimates of over 500 
individuals establish the site's capability of supporting a substantial 
population of the species. The habitat contains all of the PCEs. The 
maximum water depth is 1.8 m (5.9 ft), averaging 0.7 m (2.3 ft), and 
the temperature was recorded at 23.5 [deg]C (74.3 [deg]F) on July 2, 
2008. The substrate is composed of 100 percent silt and organic 
material, and there is a variety of emergent and submergent aquatic 
vegetation covering 89 percent of the surface area. Because the site is 
supplied with water from seepage out of Fall Creek Reservoir spillway 
and flows into Fall Creek, it is at risk of impacts from flow 
management for flood control and low summer water levels. Although the 
site currently has no competing or predatory nonnative species, it is 
at risk of nonnative fish introduction if flood control measures at the 
Dam cause reservoir water to infiltrate the ponds.
    Unit 3B, Elijah Bristow State Park Berry Slough: This site totals 
5.2 ha (12.7 ac) measured at the annual high-water elevation, is owned 
by the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (OPRD), and was occupied 
by Oregon chub at the time of listing. Berry Slough appears to be an 
abandoned river channel consisting of a chain of shallow ponds 
connected by a spring-fed flow of several cubic feet per second, 
entering the Middle Fork Willamette River about 4.0 kilometers (km) 
(2.5 miles (mi)) below Dexter Dam. Almost the entire 1.6-km (1-mile) 
length of the slough lies within Elijah Bristow State Park. The 
population is currently estimated at 5,459 individuals, and has been 
stable for 5 years, and the habitat contains all of the PCEs. The 
maximum water depth is 2.5 m (8.2 ft), averaging 1.2 m (3.9 ft), and 
the temperature was recorded at between 20 and 25 [deg]C (68 and 77 
[deg]F) on July 16, 17, and 29, 2008. The substrate is composed of 100 
percent silt and organic material, and there is a variety of emergent 
and submergent aquatic vegetation covering 100 percent of the surface 
area. The upper portion (beaver pond) at the site is isolated from 
other water bodies during most high-water events by a beaver dam and 
has no competing or predatory nonnative species. The site's connection 
to the Middle Fork Willamette River creates the risk of nonnative fish 
introduction and threatens fluctuations in the site's water level due 
to hydrologic changes in the river.
    Unit 3C, Elijah Bristow State Park Northeast Slough: This site 
totals 2.2 ha (5.4 ac), is owned by the OPRD, and Oregon chub were 
first observed here in 1999. Although only 230 Oregon chub were counted 
at the site in 2008, the habitat contains 3 of the 4 PCEs and has 
exhibited capability of supporting a substantial population of the 
species based on past survey population estimates of over 500 
individuals. The maximum depth is 2 m (6.6 ft), averaging 0.8 m (2.6 
ft), and the temperature was recorded at 22 [deg]C (72 [deg]F) on July 
22, 2008. The substrate is composed of 10 percent silt and organic 
material, and there is a variety of emergent, submergent, and floating 
aquatic vegetation covering 100 percent of the surface area. Beaver 
have also been observed at this location. Competing and predatory 
nonnative species have also been observed. Because of its connection to 
the Middle Fork Willamette River, the water levels at this site can be 
affected by hydrologic changes in the river and the site is at

[[Page 10423]]

risk of infiltration by additional nonnative fish.
    Unit 3D, Elijah Bristow State Park Island Pond: This site totals 
2.1 ha (5.2 ac), is owned by the OPRD, and Oregon chub were first 
observed here in 2003. The population is currently estimated at 1,619 
individuals and has been stable for 5 years. The habitat contains 3 of 
the 4 PCEs. The maximum depth is 2 m (6.6 ft), averaging 1.2 m (3.9 
ft), and the temperature was recorded at 18 and 25 [deg]C (64 and 77 
[deg]F) at various locations within the site on July 17, 2008. The 
substrate is composed of 96 percent silt and organic material, and 
there is a variety of emergent and submergent aquatic vegetation 
covering 92 percent of the surface area. Competing and predatory 
nonnative species have been observed at this location. Because of its 
connection to the Middle Fork Willamette River, the water levels at 
this site can be affected by hydrologic changes in the river and the 
site is at risk of infiltration by additional nonnative fish.
    Unit 3E, Dexter Reservoir RV Alcove (DEX 3): This site totals 0.4 
ha (0.9 ac) and is owned by the USACE. The site is located on the south 
side of Highway 58 off Dexter Reservoir next to a recreational vehicle 
(RV) park, and was occupied by Oregon chub at the time of listing. The 
population is currently estimated at 4,024 individuals, and has been 
stable for 5 years, and the habitat contains 3 of the 4 PCEs. The 
maximum depth is 1 m (3.3 ft), averaging 0.7 m (2.3 ft), and the 
temperature was recorded at 22.5 [deg]C (72.5 [deg]F) on July 1, 2008. 
The substrate is composed of 100 percent silt and organic material, and 
there is a variety of emergent, submergent and floating aquatic 
vegetation covering 87 percent of the surface area. Competing and 
predatory nonnative species have been observed at this location. The 
site is periodically connected to Dexter Reservoir and is therefore 
subject to impacts from regulated flow management, as well as low 
summer water levels, and the risk of infiltration by additional 
nonnative fish. Because of the site's close proximity to both the RV 
park and the highway, the water quality is at risk of contamination by 
spills and garbage.
    Unit 3F, Dexter Reservoir Alcove (PIT1): This site totals 0.1 ha 
(0.3 ac) measured at the annual high-water elevation and is owned by 
the USACE. The site is located on the south side of Highway 58 off 
Dexter Reservoir, and was occupied by Oregon chub at the time of 
listing. PIT1 is an embayment adjacent to the south shoulder of State 
Hwy 58 and connected by culvert beneath the highway to Dexter 
Reservoir. The area is owned by the State of Oregon but under USACE 
jurisdiction via a flowage easement. The site has gradually sloping 
banks, woody debris, and supports shrubs, emergent and submergent 
vegetation. There is also a large boulder riprap revetment on the 
highway side. A small, intermittent stream enters from the south. The 
population is currently estimated at 684 individuals and has been 
stable for 5 years. The habitat contains 3 of the 4 PCEs. The maximum 
water depth is 1 m (3.3 ft), averaging 0.5 m (1.6 ft), and the 
temperature was recorded at 18 [deg]C (64 [deg]F) on July 2, 2008. The 
substrate is composed of 100 percent silt and organic material, and 
there is a variety of aquatic vegetation including emergent, 
submergent, and algae covering 100 percent of the surface area. 
Competing and predatory nonnative species have been observed at this 
location. Because of its connection to Dexter Reservoir, the site is 
subject to impacts from regulated flow management, as well as low 
summer water levels, and the risk of infiltration by additional 
nonnative fish. Because of the site's close proximity to the highway, 
the water quality is at risk of contamination by spills.
    Unit 3G, East Fork Minnow Creek Pond: This site totals 1.3 ha (3.3 
ac), is owned by the ODOT, and was occupied by Oregon chub at the time 
of listing. East Minnow Creek Pond is a large beaver pond on a small 
tributary to Minnow Creek that drains into Lookout Point Reservoir. The 
pond enters Minnow Creek just south of Highway 58, after which the 
creek flows under the highway through a large box culvert. The 
population is currently estimated at 2,156 individuals and has been 
stable for 5 years. The habitat contains all of the PCEs. The maximum 
depth is 1.2 m (3.9 ft), averaging 0.5 m (1.6 ft), and the temperature 
was recorded at 19 [deg]C (66 [deg]F) on July 2, 2008. The substrate is 
composed of 100 percent silt and organic material, and there is a 
variety of emergent, submergent, and floating aquatic vegetation 
covering 100 percent of the surface area. The site is isolated from 
other water bodies and has no competing or predatory nonnative species 
but is under several threats including excess sedimentation resulting 
from timber harvest in the watershed, vegetation displacement of open 
water habitat and, due to the site's close proximity to the highway, 
contamination-related water quality issues. The ODOT is in the process 
of implementing a conservation bank for Oregon chub at this site; the 
bank includes the restoration, construction, and enhancement of Oregon 
chub habitat and other regionally significant habitats.
    Unit 3H, Hospital Pond: This site totals 0.5 ha (1.1 ac), is owned 
by the USACE, and was occupied by Oregon chub at the time of listing. 
The pond is located on the north side of the gravel road on the north 
shore of Lookout Point Reservoir and spring-fed Hospital Creek flows 
into the east end of the pond. The population is currently estimated at 
3,682 individuals and has been stable for 5 years. The habitat contains 
all of the PCEs. The maximum water depth is 3 m (9.8 ft), averaging 2 m 
(6.6 ft), and the temperature on the flooded terrace was recorded at 15 
[deg]C (59 [deg]F) on July 1, 2008. The substrate is composed of 100 
percent silt and organic material, and there is a variety of emergent, 
submergent, and floating aquatic vegetation covering 100 percent of the 
surface area. Although the site currently has no competing or predatory 
nonnative species, its connection to the reservoir puts it at risk of 
nonnative fish introduction. Beaver activity is evident in the pond. A 
culvert and gate at the outflow culvert maintains the high water level 
of the pond, but water levels in the pond can fluctuate due to its 
connection with the reservoir. Contamination-related water quality 
issues are also of concern due to the site's close proximity to the 
road.
    Unit 3I, Shady Dell Pond: This site totals 1.1 ha (2.8 ac), is 
owned by the United States Forest Service (USFS), and was occupied by 
Oregon chub at the time of listing. Shady Dell Pond is located in the 
far southeast end of Lookout Point Reservoir along the south side of 
State Highway 58 in a USFS campground. The pond was a former slough 
that was partially isolated from the Middle Fork Willamette River 
during highway construction. The site has gradually sloping banks, 
slightly turbid water, moderately abundant aquatic vegetation, and a 
substrate mix of detritus, silt, and boulders. The pond was fed only by 
rainfall and seepage, with no obvious outlet, but the USFS installed a 
diversion pipe from Dell Creek to Shady Dell Pond to maintain adequate 
summer water levels and counteract the surface area shrinkage caused by 
evaporation, leakage, or both. The population is currently estimated at 
7,249 individuals, has been stable for 5 years, and the habitat 
contains all of the PCEs. The maximum depth is 1.1 m (3.6 ft), 
averaging 0.5 m (1.6 ft), and the temperature was recorded at 21 [deg]C 
(70 [deg]F) on July 22, 2008. The substrate is 100 percent silt and 
organic material, and there is a variety of emergent, submergent, and 
floating aquatic

[[Page 10424]]

vegetation covering 82 percent of the surface area. The site is 
isolated from other water bodies and has no competing or predatory 
nonnative species. Beaver have been observed at this location. Because 
of its proximity to the campground and its connection to Dell Creek the 
site is at risk from nonnative fish introduction and contamination-
related water quality issues.
    Unit 3J, Buckhead Creek: This site totals 3.8 ha (9.3 ac), is owned 
by the USFS, and was occupied by Oregon chub at the time of listing. 
Buckhead Creek is a tributary flowing into the Middle Fork Willamette 
River at the northeast end of Lookout Point Reservoir. Access to the 
site is via a Lane County gravel road and USFS Road 5821 that skirts 
the east side of the river. The channel varies from a few meters (feet) 
to over 16 m (50 feet) wide with both sloping and undercut banks, a 
bottom composed of silt, boulders, gravel and detritus, with some woody 
debris and aquatic vegetation. The lower 2.4 km (1.5 miles) of the 
creek flows through a slough-like, abandoned channel of the Middle Fork 
Willamette River and is wide, shallow, slightly turbid and low 
gradient, with marshy habitat. The population is currently estimated at 
1,258 individuals and has been stable for 5 years. The habitat contains 
all of the PCEs. The maximum depth is 1.5 m (4.9 ft), averaging 0.8 m 
(2.6 ft), and the temperature was recorded at between 18 and 24 [deg]C 
(64 and 75 [deg]F) on July 15 and July 21, 2008. The substrate is 
composed of 98 percent silt and organic material, and there is a 
variety of emergent, submergent, and floating aquatic vegetation 
covering 80 percent of the surface area. Beaver frequent the area and 
Oregon chub are often found in beaver ponds on the lower 2.4 km (1.5 
mi) of the creek. Although the site currently has no competing or 
predatory nonnative species, its connection to the river puts it at 
risk of nonnative fish introduction. Other threats include excess 
sedimentation from logging in the watershed as well as contamination-
related water quality issues due to the site's close proximity to the 
road.
    Unit 3K, Wicopee Pond: This site totals 1.4 ha (3.3 ac), is owned 
by the USFS, and was occupied at the time of listing as a result of a 
1988 introduction of 50 Oregon chub. The pond, a former borrow pit 
adjacent to Salt Creek in the upper Middle Fork Willamette River 
drainage, was created when a bridge crossing was constructed on a small 
logging road that crosses Salt Creek, along Highway 58. The population 
is currently estimated at 5,431 individuals and has been stable for 5 
years. The habitat contains all of the PCEs. The maximum depth is 2 m 
(6.6 ft), averaging 1.2 m (3.9 ft), and the temperature was recorded at 
17 [deg]C (63 [deg]F) on June 30, 2008. The substrate is 100 percent 
silt and organic material, and there is a variety of emergent, 
submergent and floating aquatic vegetation and algae covering 100 
percent of the surface area. Beaver have been observed at this location 
and the site has no competing or predatory nonnative species. The site 
is at risk of excess sedimentation resulting from logging in the 
watershed.
    Table 1 provides a summary of the approximate area (hectares/acres) 
of sites by County and ownership determined to meet the definition of 
critical habitat to the Oregon chub. Table 2 provides ownership 
information and the area of each proposed critical habitat unit.

  Table 1--Areas in Hectares (Acres) Determined To Meet the Definition of Critical Habitat for the Oregon Chub
                (Definitional Area) by County and Ownership (Totals May Not Sum Due to Rounding)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Other       Definitional
             County                   Private          State          Federal       government         area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benton..........................      7.3 (18.1)  ..............       3.7 (9.2)  ..............      6.3 (27.3)
Lane............................       3.5 (8.6)     10.8 (26.5)      8.7 (21.6)  ..............     23.0 (56.7)
Linn............................  ..............       1.4 (3.6)       0.4 (1.0)  ..............       1.8 (4.6)
Marion..........................       2.5 (6.2)  ..............     14.0 (34.5)       1.2 (2.8)     17.6 (43.6)
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................     13.3 (32.9)    12.2 (30.11)     26.8 (66.3)       1.2 (2.8)    53.5 (132.1)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


        Table 2--Critical Habitat Units Proposed for the Oregon Chub (Totals May Not Sum Due to Rounding)
                    [Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Critical habitat unit                          Land ownership                Hectares      Acres
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1A............................................  State of Oregon, ODOT.................          1.4          3.3
1B(1).........................................  City of Salem.........................          0.8          1.9
1B(2).........................................  City of Stayton.......................          0.4          1.0
1B(3).........................................  State of Oregon, ODFW.................          0.1          0.2
1B(4).........................................  Private...............................          2.5          6.2
1C............................................  USACE.................................          0.4          1.0
2A(1).........................................  Private...............................          0.1          0.1
2A(2).........................................  Private...............................          0.1          0.3
2A(3).........................................  Private...............................          3.3          8.2
2B(1).........................................  USFWS.................................         14.0         34.5
2B(2).........................................  Private...............................          6.1         15.2
2B(3).........................................  USFWS.................................          1.0          2.4
2B(4).........................................  USFWS.................................          0.9          2.3
2B(5).........................................  USFWS & Private.......................          3.0          7.4
3A............................................  USACE.................................          1.5          3.8
3B............................................  State of Oregon, OPRD.................          5.2         12.7
3C............................................  State of Oregon, OPRD.................          2.2          5.4
3D............................................  State of Oregon, OPRD.................          2.1          5.2
3E............................................  USACE.................................          0.4          0.9
3F............................................  USACE.................................          0.1          0.3
3G............................................  State of Oregon, ODOT.................          1.3          3.3

[[Page 10425]]

 
3H............................................  USACE.................................          0.5          1.1
3I............................................  USFS..................................          1.1          2.8
3J............................................  USFS..................................          3.8          9.3
3K............................................  USFS..................................          1.4          3.3
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
    Total                                       ......................................         53.5        132.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [Key of abbreviations in Table 2:

ODOT--Oregon Department of Transportation
ODFW--Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
USACE--United States Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS--U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
OPRD--Oregon Parks and Recreation Department
USFS--U.S. Forest Service]

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation
    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are 
not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Decisions 
by the courts of appeal for the Fifth and Ninth Circuits have 
invalidated our definition of ``destruction or adverse modification'' 
(50 CFR 402.02) (see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, 378 F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir 2004) and Sierra Club v. U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 245 F.3d 434, 442F (5th Cir 2001)), 
and we do not rely on this regulatory definition when analyzing whether 
an action is likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. 
Under the statutory provisions of the Act, an important factor in 
determining whether an action will destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat is whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, 
the affected critical habitat would remain functional (or retain those 
PCEs that relate to the ability of the area to periodically support the 
species) to serve its intended conservation role for the species.
    Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is 
proposed or listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its 
critical habitat, if any is proposed or designated. Regulations 
implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are 
codified at 50 CFR part 402.
    Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with 
the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of a species proposed for listing or result in destruction or 
adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. This is a procedural 
requirement only, as any conservation recommendations in a conference 
report or opinion are strictly advisory. However, once proposed species 
become listed, or proposed critical habitat is designated as final, the 
full prohibitions of section 7(a)(2) of the Act apply to any Federal 
action. The primary utility of the conference procedures is to maximize 
the opportunity for a Federal agency to adequately consider proposed 
species and critical habitat and avoid potential delays in implementing 
their proposed action as a result of the section 7(a)(2) compliance 
process, should those species be listed or the critical habitat 
designated.
    The primary utility of the conference procedures is to allow a 
Federal agency to maximize its opportunity to adequately consider 
species proposed for listing and proposed critical habitat and, if we 
list the proposed species or designate proposed critical habitat, to 
avoid potential delays in implementing their proposed action because of 
the section 7(a)(2) compliance process. We may conduct conferences 
either informally or formally. We typically use informal conferences as 
a means of providing advisory conservation recommendations to assist 
the agency in eliminating conflicts that the proposed action may cause. 
We typically use formal conferences when the Federal agency or the 
Service believes the proposed action is likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of the species proposed for listing or adversely 
modify proposed critical habitat.
    We generally provide the results of an informal conference in a 
conference report, while we provide the results of a formal conference 
in a conference opinion. We typically prepare conference opinions on 
proposed critical habitat in accordance with procedures contained at 50 
CFR 402.14, as if the proposed critical habitat was already designated. 
We may adopt the conference opinion as the biological opinion when the 
critical habitat is designated, if no substantial new information or 
changes in the action alter the content of the opinion (see 50 CFR 
402.10(d)).
    If a species is listed or critical habitat is designated, section 
7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities 
they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of such a species or to destroy or adversely modify 
its critical habitat. Activities on State, Tribal, local, or private 
lands requiring a Federal permit (such as a permit from the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 
1251 et seq.) or a permit from us under section 10 of the Act) or 
involving some other Federal action (such as funding from the Federal 
Highway Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, or the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency) are subject to the section 7(a)(2) 
consultation process. Federal actions not affecting listed species or 
critical habitat, and actions on State, Tribal, local, or private lands 
that are not federally funded, authorized, or permitted, do not require 
section 7(a)(2) consultations.
    If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical 
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into 
consultation with us. As a result of this consultation, compliance with 
the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act will be documented 
through the Service's issuance of:
    1. A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but 
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat; 
or
    2. A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, but 
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
    When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is 
likely to

[[Page 10426]]

result in jeopardy to a listed species or the destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat, we also provide reasonable and 
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable. We define 
``reasonable and prudent alternatives'' at 50 CFR 402.02 as alternative 
actions identified during consultation that
     Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the 
intended purpose of the action,
     Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the 
Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
     Are economically and technologically feasible, and
     Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid jeopardizing the 
continued existence of the listed species or destroying or adversely 
modifying critical habitat.
    Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project 
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs 
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are 
similarly variable.
    Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate 
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where a new 
species is listed or critical habitat is subsequently designated that 
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary 
involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary 
involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, some 
Federal agencies may sometimes need to request reinitiation of 
consultation with us on actions for which formal consultation has been 
completed, if those actions with discretionary involvement may affect 
subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.

Application of the Jeopardy and Adverse Modification Standards

Jeopardy Standard

    Currently, the Service applies an analytical framework for Oregon 
chub jeopardy analyses that relies heavily on the importance of known 
populations to the species' survival and recovery. The section 7(a)(2) 
of the Act analysis is focused not only on these populations but also 
on the habitat conditions necessary to support them.
    The jeopardy analysis usually expresses the survival and recovery 
needs of the Oregon chub in a qualitative fashion without making 
distinctions between what is necessary for survival and what is 
necessary for recovery. Generally, the jeopardy analysis focuses on the 
range-wide status of the Oregon chub, the factors responsible for that 
condition, and what is necessary for this species to survive and 
recover. An emphasis is also placed on characterizing the condition of 
the Oregon chub in the area affected by the proposed Federal action and 
the role of affected populations in the survival and recovery of the 
Oregon chub. That context is then used to determine the significance of 
adverse and beneficial effects of the proposed Federal action and any 
cumulative effects for purposes of making the jeopardy determination.

Adverse Modification Standard

    The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is 
whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the 
affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended 
conservation role for the species, or would retain its current ability 
for the PCEs to be functionally established. Activities that may 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat are those that alter the 
PCEs to an extent that appreciably reduces the conservation value of 
critical habitat for the Oregon chub. Generally, the conservation role 
of Oregon chub critical habitat units is to support the various life-
history needs and provide for the conservation of the species.
    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and 
describe in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical 
habitat those activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or 
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such 
designation. Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat may also jeopardize the continued existence of the species.
    Activities that, when carried out, funded, or authorized by a 
Federal agency, may affect critical habitat and therefore result in 
consultation for the Oregon chub include, but are not limited to:
    1. Actions that would adversely affect the Oregon chub's space for 
individual and population growth and normal behavior. These include 
altering the flow, gradient, or depth of the water channel by way of 
activities such as channelization, impoundment, road and bridge 
construction, mining, dredging, and destruction of riparian vegetation. 
These activities may lead to changes in water flows and levels that 
would degrade, reduce, or eliminate the habitat necessary for the 
growth and reproduction of Oregon chub.
    2. Actions that would significantly alter areas for reproduction, 
shelter, and food (habitat for prey). These include:
     Reducing or eliminating vegetative cover of the water 
channel by activities such as release of contaminants into the surface 
water or connected groundwater at a point source or by dispersed 
release (non-point source). These activities can result in loss of the 
vegetative cover that is vital to the Oregon chub's ability to spawn 
and hide from predators.
     Altering the substrate within the water channel through 
sediment deposition from livestock grazing, road construction, channel 
alteration, timber harvest, off-road vehicle use, and other watershed 
and floodplain disturbances. When these activities increase the 
sediment deposition to levels that begin to change open-water habitat 
to emergent wetland, the habitat necessary for the growth and 
reproduction of these fish is reduced or eliminated.
     Significantly decreasing the populations of minute 
organisms in the water channel that make up the food base of the Oregon 
chub.
    3. Actions that would significantly alter water temperature, 
thereby negatively affecting the Oregon chub's physiological processes 
for normal spawning and survival. Such activities could include, but 
are not limited to, release of chemicals, biological pollutants, or 
heated effluents into the surface water or connected groundwater at a 
point source or by dispersed release (non-point source). These 
activities could alter water quality to conditions that are beyond the 
tolerances of Oregon chub and result in direct or cumulative adverse 
effects to these individuals and their life cycles.
    4. Actions that would disturb the habitat of Oregon chub by 
introducing, spreading, or augmenting nonnative competitive or 
predatory aquatic species into any of the proposed designated units. 
Such activities may include, but are not limited to, stocking for 
sport, aesthetics, biological control, or other purposes; the illegal 
use of live bait fish, aquaculture, or dumping of aquarium fish or 
other species; and connection of a designated critical habitat unit to 
another water body known to contain nonnative aquatic species. These 
activities could cause Oregon chub fatalities, displace Oregon chub 
from their habitat, and/or cause Oregon chub to spend a 
disproportionate amount of time hiding at the expense of foraging.
    We consider all of the units proposed as critical habitat to 
contain features essential to the conservation of the Oregon chub. All 
units are within the geographic range of the species and are currently 
occupied by the Oregon chub. To ensure that their actions do not 
jeopardize the continued existence of the Oregon chub, Federal agencies

[[Page 10427]]

already consult with us on activities in areas currently occupied by 
the Oregon chub, or in unoccupied areas if the species may be affected 
by the action.

Exemptions

Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
    The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a) 
required each military installation that includes land and water 
suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to 
complete an integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) by 
November 17, 2001. An INRMP integrates implementation of the military 
mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural resources 
found on the base. Each INRMP includes:
     An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation, 
including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
     A statement of goals and priorities;
     A detailed description of management actions to be 
implemented to provide for these ecological needs; and
     A monitoring and adaptive management plan.

Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and 
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife 
habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement, 
and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and 
enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. 
L. No. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation 
as critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now provides: ``The Secretary shall not 
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas 
owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its 
use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management 
plan prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if 
the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit 
to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for 
designation.''
    There are no Department of Defense lands with a completed 
integrated natural resources management plan within the proposed 
critical habitat designation. Therefore, there are no specific lands 
that meet the criteria for being exempted from the designation of 
critical habitat pursuant to section 4(a)(3) of the Act.

Exclusions

Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary must designate 
or make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the best 
available scientific data after taking into consideration the economic 
impact, national security impact, and any other relevant impact, of 
specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may 
exclude an area from critical habitat if he determines that the 
benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such 
area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based on 
the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate such 
area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species. 
In making that determination, the legislative history is clear that the 
Secretary has broad discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how 
much weight to give to any factor.
    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, in considering whether to exclude 
a particular area from the designation, we must identify the benefits 
of including the area in the designation, identify the benefits of 
excluding the area from the designation, and determine whether the 
benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion. If, based on 
this analysis, we determine that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the 
benefits of inclusion, we can exclude the area only if such exclusion 
would not result in the extinction of the species.
    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we must consider all relevant 
impacts, including economic impacts. In addition to economic impacts, 
we consider a number of factors in a section 4(b)(2) analysis. For 
example, we consider whether there are lands owned by the Department of 
Defense (DOD) where a national security impact might exist. We also 
consider whether landowners have developed any Habitat Conservation 
Plans (HCPs) for the area, or whether there are conservation 
partnerships that would be encouraged or discouraged by designation of, 
or exclusion from, critical habitat in an area. In addition, we look at 
the presence of Tribal lands or Tribal Trust resources that might be 
affected, and consider the government-to-government relationship of the 
United States with the Tribal entities. We also consider any social 
impacts that might occur because of the designation.
    We have preliminarily considered the potential economic impacts of 
this proposed critical habitat designation, and are not proposing to 
exclude any areas under section 4(b)(2) of the Act because of economic, 
national security, or other considerations. Although some sites have a 
level of management for Oregon chub in place, none of the sites 
currently have the type of comprehensive management plan required to 
ensure the conservation of the species on site, such as any legally 
operative HCPs that cover the species, draft HCPs that cover the 
species and have undergone public review and comment, State 
conservation plans that cover the species, or National Wildlife Refuge 
System Comprehensive Conservation Plans that specifically mention and 
plan for Oregon chub conservation. Additionally, none of the lands or 
waters within the proposed designation are owned or managed for 
purposes of national security by the Department of Defense, and the 
proposed designation does not include any Tribal lands or trust 
resources. Therefore, we anticipate no impact to national security, 
Tribal lands, partnerships, or habitat conservation plans from this 
proposed critical habitat designation. Based on the best available 
information, we have preliminarily determined that all of the units 
proposed as critical habitat contain the features essential to, or are 
otherwise essential for the conservation of, this species. However, to 
ensure our final determination is based on the best available 
information, we are soliciting comments on any foreseeable economic, 
national security, or other potential impacts resulting from this 
proposed designation of critical habitat from governmental, business, 
or private interests, and in particular, any potential impacts on small 
entities. We are also soliciting comments on whether the benefits of 
exclusion of a particular area outweigh the benefits of inclusion.

Economic Analysis

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act allows the Secretary to exclude areas 
from critical habitat for economic reasons if the Secretary determines 
that the benefits of such exclusion exceed the benefits of designating 
the area as critical habitat. However, this exclusion cannot occur if 
it will result in the extinction of the species concerned.
    In compliance with section 4(b)(2) of the Act, the Service is 
preparing an economic analysis of the impacts of proposing critical 
habitat designation and related factors for the Oregon chub, to 
evaluate the potential economic impact of the designation. We will 
announce the availability of the draft economic analysis as soon as it 
is completed, at which time we will seek public review and comment. At 
that time, copies of the draft economic analysis will be available for

[[Page 10428]]

downloading from the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov, or from 
the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section). Based on public comment on that document, areas may 
be excluded from critical habitat by the Secretary under the provisions 
of section 4(b)(2) of the Act. This is provided for in the Act, and in 
our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 242.19.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our joint policy published in the Federal 
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we are obtaining the expert 
opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists 
regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure 
that our critical habitat designation is based on scientifically sound 
data, assumptions, and analyses. We have invited these peer reviewers 
to comment during this public comment period on our specific 
assumptions and conclusions in this proposed designation of critical 
habitat.
    We will consider all comments and information we receive during 
this comment period on this proposed rule during our preparation of a 
final determination. Accordingly, our final decision may differ from 
this proposal.

Public Hearings

    The Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal, 
if we receive any requests for hearings. We must receive your request 
for a public hearing within 45 days after the date of this Federal 
Register publication. Send your request to the address listed in FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule public hearings on this 
proposal, if any are requested, and announce the dates, times, and 
places of those hearings, as well as how to obtain reasonable 
accommodations, in the Federal Register and local newspapers at least 
15 days before the first hearing.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review--Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this 
rule is not significant under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. OMB bases 
its determination upon the following four criteria:
    1. Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or 
more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector, 
productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government.
    2. Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal 
agencies' actions.
    3. Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants, 
user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their 
recipients.
    4. Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as 
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice 
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effects of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). 
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of 
the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) to require Federal agencies to 
provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that the rule 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.
    At this time, the Service lacks the available economic information 
necessary to provide an adequate factual basis for the required RFA 
finding. Therefore, the RFA finding is deferred until completion of the 
draft economic analysis prepared pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the ESA 
and E.O. 12866. This draft economic analysis will provide the required 
factual basis for the RFA finding. Upon completion of the draft 
economic analysis, the Service will publish a notice of availability of 
the draft economic analysis of the proposed designation and reopen the 
public comment period for the proposed designation. The Service will 
include with the notice of availability, as appropriate, an initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis or a certification that the rule will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities accompanied by the factual basis for that determination. The 
Service has concluded that deferring the RFA finding until completion 
of the draft economic analysis is necessary to meet the purposes and 
requirements of the RFA. Deferring the RFA finding in this manner will 
ensure that the Service makes a sufficiently informed determination 
based on adequate economic information and provides the necessary 
opportunity for public comment.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 
1501), the Service makes the following findings:
    a. This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a 
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation 
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, tribal 
governments, or the private sector and includes both ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.'' 
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose 
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two 
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also 
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal 
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal 
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, 
local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the 
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance'' 
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's 
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or tribal 
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of 
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; AFDC work 
programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants; 
Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption 
Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services; 
and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal private sector mandate'' 
includes a regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty upon the 
private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a 
duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.''
    The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally 
binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private parties. 
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must 
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive 
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require 
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be 
indirectly impacted

[[Page 10429]]

by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to 
avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests 
squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that non-
Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they receive Federal 
assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program, the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply; nor would critical 
habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above 
on to State governments.
    b. We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely 
affect small governments. Due to current public knowledge of the 
species' protection, the prohibition against take of the species both 
within and outside of the designated areas, and the fact that for this 
species we believe critical habitat provides no incremental 
restrictions, we do not anticipate that this rule will significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments. As such, a Small Government Agency 
Plan is not required. We will, however, further evaluate this issue as 
we conduct our economic analysis and revise this assessment if 
appropriate.

Takings

    In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference 
with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have 
analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical 
habitat for the Oregon chub in a takings implications assessment. The 
takings implications assessment concludes that this proposed 
designation of critical habitat for the Oregon chub does not pose 
significant takings implications for lands within or affected by the 
designation.

Federalism

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have 
significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not 
required. In keeping with DOI and Department of Commerce policy, we 
requested information from, and coordinated development of, this 
proposed critical habitat designation with appropriate State resource 
agencies in Oregon. The designation of critical habitat in areas 
currently occupied by the Oregon chub imposes no additional 
restrictions to those currently in place and, therefore, has little 
incremental impact on State and local governments and their activities. 
The designation may have some benefit to these governments in that the 
areas that contain the features essential to the conservation of the 
species are more clearly defined, and the primary constituent elements 
of the habitat necessary to the conservation of the species are 
specifically identified. While making this definition and 
identification does not alter where and what federally sponsored 
activities may occur, it may assist these local governments in long-
range planning (rather than waiting for case-by-case section 7 
consultations to occur).

Civil Justice Reform

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the 
Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the 
judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 
of the Order. We have proposed designating critical habitat in 
accordance with the provisions of the Endangered Species Act. This 
proposed rule uses standard property descriptions and identifies the 
primary constituent elements within the designated areas to assist the 
public in understanding the habitat needs of the Oregon chub.

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

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

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    It is our position that, outside the Tenth Circuit, we do not need 
to prepare environmental analyses as defined by the NEPA in connection 
with designating critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this 
determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 
49244). This assertion was upheld in the courts of the Ninth Circuit 
(Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. Ore. 1995), cert. 
denied 116 S. Ct. 698 (1996).

Clarity of the Rule

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

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and the Department 
of Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. We have determined that 
there are no Tribal lands occupied at the time of listing that contain 
the features essential for the conservation of the Oregon chub and no 
Tribal lands that are unoccupied areas that are essential for the 
conservation of the Oregon chub. Therefore, designation of critical 
habitat for the Oregon chub has not been designated on Tribal lands.

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued an Executive Order (E.O. 
13211) on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, 
distribution, and use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to 
prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. 
This proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the Oregon chub is 
not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or 
use. Although there are some hydroelectric operations on dams operated 
by the USACE adjacent to several critical habitat units along the 
Middlefork Willamette River, the USACE recently completed a formal 
consultation with the Service regarding the effect of those operations 
on Oregon chub. The Biological Opinion On the Continued Operation and 
Maintenance of the Willamette River Basin Project and Effects to Oregon 
Chub, Bull Trout, and Bull Trout Critical Habitat Designated Under the 
Endangered Species Act (USFWS 2008b) established strict Terms and 
Conditions for the conservation of Oregon chub in those

[[Page 10430]]

habitats that would be impacted by dam operations. These same habitats 
are included in this proposal. The designation of critical habitat in 
the areas adjacent to the hydroelectric operations will not change 
current Oregon chub conservation practices surrounding dam operations. 
Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action and no 
Statement of Energy Effects is required.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this rulemaking is 
available upon request from the Field Supervisor, Oregon Fish and 
Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Author(s)

    The primary authors of this package are staff members of the Oregon 
Fish and Wildlife Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Public Law 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise 
noted.
    2. In Sec.  17.11(h), revise the entry for ``Chub, Oregon'' under 
``Fishes'' in the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to read as 
follows:


Sec.  17.11   Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Species                                                       Vertebrate
----------------------------------------------------------                          population where                        When     Critical   Special
                                                               Historic range         endangered or          Status        listed    habitat     rules
            Common name                Scientific name                                 threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
              Fishes
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Chub, Oregon......................  Oregonichthys crameri  U.S.A. (OR)..........  entire..............  E                      520   17.95(e)         NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    3. In Sec.  17.95(e), add an entry for ``Oregon Chub (Oregonichthys 
crameri)'' under ``Fishes'', in the same alphabetic order as this 
species appears in Sec.  17.11(h), to read as follows:


Sec.  17.95  Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
    (e) Fishes.
* * * * *
Oregon Chub (Oregonichthys crameri)
    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Benton, Lane, Linn, and 
Marion Counties, Oregon, on the maps below.
    (2) The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for the 
Oregon chub are the habitat components that provide:
    (i) Off-channel water bodies such as beaver ponds, oxbows, side-
channels, stable backwater sloughs, low-gradient tributaries, and 
flooded marshes, including at least 500 continuous square meters (0.12 
ac) of surface area and water depth between approximately 0.5-2.0 m 
(1.6-6.6 ft). This PCE provides space for individual and population 
growth and normal behavior.
    (ii) Aquatic vegetation covering a minimum of 250 m2 
(.061 ac) (or between approximately 25 and 100 percent of the total 
surface area of the habitat). This vegetation is primarily submergent 
for purposes of spawning, but also includes emergent and floating 
vegetation, and algae, which is important for cover throughout the 
year. This PCE provides areas for reproduction, shelter, and food 
(habitat for prey). Areas with sufficient vegetation are likely to also 
have the following characteristics:
    (A) Gradient less than 2.5 percent;
    (B) No or very low water velocity in late spring and summer;
    (C) Silty, organic substrate; and
    (D) Abundant minute organisms such as rotifers, copepods, 
cladocerans, and chironomid larvae.
    (iii) Late spring and summer subsurface water temperatures between 
15 and 25 [deg]C (59 and 78 [deg]F), with natural diurnal and seasonal 
variation. This PCE enables optimal physiological processes for 
spawning and survival.
    (iv) No or negligible levels of nonnative aquatic predatory or 
competitive species. Negligible is defined for the purpose of this 
proposed rule as a minimal level of nonnative species that will still 
allow the Oregon chub to continue to survive and reproduce. This PCE 
provides Oregon chub habitat free from disturbance and, therefore, 
sufficient reproduction and survival opportunities.
    (3) Critical habitat does not include man-made structures 
(including, but not limited to, docks, seawalls, pipelines, or other 
structures) and the land on which they are located existing within the 
boundaries on the effective date of this rule.
    (4) Critical Habitat Map Units. The data layer defining critical 
habitat was created using a Trimble GeoXT GPS unit. These critical 
habitat units were mapped using Universal Transverse Mercator, Zone 10, 
North American Datum 1983 (UTM NAD 83) coordinates. These coordinates 
establish the vertices and endpoints of the boundaries of the units.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 10431]]

    (5) Note: Index map for critical habitat for the Oregon chub 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MR09.004


[[Page 10432]]


    (6) Unit 1A: Santiam I-5 Side Channels, Linn County, Oregon.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map of Unit 1A Critical Habitat for Oregon Chub 
(Oregonichthys crameri) follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MR09.005


[[Page 10433]]


    (7) Unit 1B(1): Geren Island North Channel, Marion County, Oregon.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map of Unit 1B(1) Critical Habitat for Oregon Chub 
(Oregonichthys crameri) follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MR09.006


[[Page 10434]]


    (8) Unit 1B(2): Stayton Public Works Pond, Marion County, Oregon.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: A map showing critical habitat unit 1(B)(2) is found at 
paragraph (10)(ii) of this entry.
    (9) Unit 1B(3): South Stayton Pond, Linn County, Oregon.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: A map showing critical habitat unit 1(B)(3) is found at 
paragraph (10)(ii) of this entry.
    (10) Unit 1B(4): Gray Slough, Marion County, Oregon.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map of Units 1B(2), 1B(3), and 1B(4) of critical habitat 
for Oregon chub (Oregonichthys crameri) follows:

[[Page 10435]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MR09.007


[[Page 10436]]


    (11) Unit 1C: Foster Pullout Pond, Linn County, Oregon.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map of Unit 1C Critical Habitat for Oregon Chub 
(Oregonichthys crameri) follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MR09.008


[[Page 10437]]


    (12) Unit 2A(1): Russell Pond, Lane County, Oregon.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: A map showing critical habitat unit 2(A)(1) is found at 
paragraph (13)(ii) of this entry.
    (13) Unit 2A(2): Shetzline Pond, Lane County, Oregon.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map of Units 2A(1) and 2A(2) of critical habitat for 
Oregon chub (Oregonichthys crameri) follows:

[[Page 10438]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MR09.009


[[Page 10439]]


    (14) Unit 2A(3): Big Island, Lane County, Oregon.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map of Unit 2A(3) Critical Habitat for Oregon Chub 
(Oregonichthys crameri) follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MR09.010


[[Page 10440]]


    (15) Unit 2B(1): Ankeny Willow Marsh, Marion County, Oregon.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map of Unit 2B(1) Critical Habitat for Oregon Chub 
(Oregonichthys crameri) follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MR09.011


[[Page 10441]]


    (16) Unit 2B(2): Dunn Wetland, Benton County, Oregon.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map of Unit 2B(2) Critical Habitat for Oregon Chub 
(Oregonichthys crameri) follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MR09.012


[[Page 10442]]


    (17) Unit 2B(3): Finley Display Pond, Benton County, Oregon.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: A map showing critical habitat unit 2(B)(3) is found at 
paragraph (19)(ii) of this entry.
    (18) Unit 2B(4): Finley Cheadle Pond, Benton County, Oregon.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: A map showing critical habitat unit 2(B)(4) is found at 
paragraph (19)(ii) of this entry.
    (19) Unit 2B(5): Finley Gray Creek Swamp, Benton County, Oregon.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map of Units 2B(3), 2B(4), and 2B(5) of critical habitat 
for Oregon chub (Oregonichthys crameri) follows:

[[Page 10443]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MR09.013


[[Page 10444]]


    (20) Unit 3A: Fall Creek Spillway Ponds, Lane County, Oregon.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map of Unit 3A Critical Habitat for Oregon Chub 
(Oregonichthys crameri) follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MR09.014


[[Page 10445]]


    (21) Unit 3B: Elijah Bristow State Park Berry Slough, Lane County, 
Oregon.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: A map showing critical habitat unit 3B is found at 
paragraph (23)(ii) of this entry.
    (22) Unit 3C; Elijah Bristow State Park Northeast Slough, Lane 
County, Oregon.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: A map showing critical habitat unit 3C is found at 
paragraph (23)(ii) of this entry.
    (23) Unit 3D: Elijah Bristow State Park Island Pond, Lane County, 
Oregon.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map of Units 3B, 3C, and 3D of critical habitat for 
Oregon chub (Oregonichthys crameri) follows:

[[Page 10446]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MR09.015


[[Page 10447]]


    (24) Unit 3E: Dexter Reservoir RV Alcove--DEX3, Lane County, 
Oregon.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: A map showing critical habitat unit 3E is found at 
paragraph (25)(ii) of this entry.
    (25) Unit 3F: Dexter Reservoir Alcove--PIT1, Lane County, Oregon.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map of Units 3E and 3F of critical habitat for Oregon 
chub (Oregonichthys crameri) follows:

[[Page 10448]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MR09.016


[[Page 10449]]


    (26) Unit 3G: East Fork Minnow Creek Pond, Lane County, Oregon.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map of Unit 3G Critical Habitat for Oregon Chub 
(Oregonichthys crameri) follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MR09.017


[[Page 10450]]


    (27) Unit 3H: Hospital Pond, Lane County, Oregon.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map of Unit 3H Critical Habitat for Oregon Chub 
(Oregonichthys crameri) follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MR09.018


[[Page 10451]]


    (28) Unit 3I: Shady Dell Pond, Lane County, Oregon.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: A map showing critical habitat unit 3I is found at 
paragraph (29)(ii) of this entry.
    (29) Unit 3J: Buckhead Creek, Lane County, Oregon.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map of Units 3I and 3J of critical habitat for Oregon 
chub (Oregonichthys crameri) follows:

[[Page 10452]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MR09.019


[[Page 10453]]


    (30) Unit 3K: Wicopee Pond, Lane County, Oregon.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of unit.]
    (ii) Note: Map of Unit 3K Critical Habitat for Oregon Chub 
(Oregonichthys crameri) follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MR09.020

* * * * *

    Dated: February 26, 2009.
Jane Lyder,
Assistant Deputy Secretary, Department of the Interior.
 [FR Doc. E9-4528 Filed 3-9-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C