11010 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

FINAL REPORT OF THEFT RATES FOR MODEL YEAR 2007 PASSENGER MOTOR VEHICLES STOLEN IN CALENDAR YEAR

2007—Continued 

Manufacturer Make/model (line) Thefts 2007 Production 

(Mfr’s) 2007 

2007 theft 

rate (per 1,000 

vehicles 

produced) 

183 ............ BMW .......................................... MINI COOPER ................................................. 15 38511 0.3895 

184 ............ JAGUAR .................................... S-TYPE ............................................................ 1 2582 0.3873 

185 ............ TOYOTA .................................... PRIUS .............................................................. 53 158715 0.3339 

186 ............ SAAB ......................................... 9–3 ................................................................... 7 22401 0.3125 

187 ............ HONDA ...................................... ODYSSEY VAN ............................................... 64 208166 0.3074 

188 ............ FORD MOTOR CO ................... MERCURY MARINER ..................................... 6 20842 0.2879 

189 ............ VOLVO ...................................... C70 ................................................................... 1 5612 0.1782 

190 ............ TOYOTA .................................... LEXUS SC ....................................................... 8 80617 0.0992 

191 ............ ASTON MARTIN ....................... DB9 .................................................................. 0 688 0.0000 

192 ............ BENTLEY MOTORS ................. ARNAGE .......................................................... 0 140 0.0000 

193 ............ BENTLEY MOTORS ................. AZURE ............................................................. 0 184 0.0000 

194 ............ CHRYSLER ............................... CROSSFIRE .................................................... 0 3412 0.0000 

195 ............ FERRARI ................................... 141 ................................................................... 0 364 0.0000 

196 ............ FERRARI ................................... 612 SCAGLIETTI ............................................. 0 66 0.0000

197 ............ FERRARI ................................... 430 ................................................................... 0 1382 0.0000 

198 ............ GENERAL MOTORS ................. CADILLAC LIMOUSINE ................................... 0 648 0.0000 

199 ............ JAGUAR .................................... XJ8/XJ8L .......................................................... 0 1645 0.0000 

200 ............ JAGUAR .................................... XJR .................................................................. 0 221 0.0000 

201 ............ LAMBORGHINI .......................... MURCIELAGO ................................................. 0 164 0.0000 

202 ............ LAMBORGHINI .......................... GALLARDO ...................................................... 0 558 0.0000 

203 ............ MASERATI ................................ QUATTROPORTE ........................................... 0 2176 0.0000 

204 ............ SAAB ......................................... 9–5 ................................................................... 0 4084 0.0000 

205 ............ SPYKER .................................... C8 ..................................................................... 0 7 0.0000 

206 ............ VOLVO ...................................... V70 ................................................................... 0 3899 0.0000 

Issued on: March 4, 2010. 

Stephen R. Kratzke, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 2010–5080 Filed 3–9–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2009–0010] 

[MO 92210-0-0009-B4] 

RIN 1018–AV87 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Designation of Critical 

Habitat for Oregon Chub 

(Oregonichthys crameri) 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), designate 

critical habitat for the Oregon chub 

(Oregonichthys crameri) under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). In total, approximately 

53 hectares (ha) (132 acres (ac)) located 

in Benton, Lane, Linn, and Marion 

Counties, Oregon, fall within the 

boundaries of the critical habitat 

designation. 

DATES: This rule becomes effective on 

April 9, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: This final rule, the 

economic analysis, comments and 

materials received, as well as supporting 

documentation we used in preparing 

this final rule, are available for viewing 

at http://regulations.govat Docket No. 

FWS–R1–ES–2009–0010 and, by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife 

Office, 2600 SE 98th Ave., Portland, OR 

97266; telephone 503–231–6179; 

facsimile 503–231–6195. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Henson, State Supervisor, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and 

Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES). If you 

use a telecommunications device for the 

deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

It is our intent to discuss only those 

topics directly relevant to the 

development and designation of critical 

habitat for the Oregon chub in this final 

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, which is 

available at: http://www.fws.gov/pacific/ 

ecoservices/endangered/recovery/ 

Documents/Oregonchub.pdf and the 

March 10, 2009, proposed rule (74 FR 

10412). 

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). 

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. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 11011 

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 C) (61Celsius (summer subsurface 

water temperature exceeding 15 F)) 

(Scheerer and Apke 1997, p. 45; 

Scheerer 2002, p. 1073; 

ScheererFahrenheit ( and McDonald 

2003, p. 69). Optimal Oregon chub 

habitat provides 1 square meter (11 

square feet) 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 nonaggressive 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. In the Santiam 

River basin, the two largest natural 

populations of Oregon chub declined 

substantially after nonnative fishes 

invaded these habitats 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 spp. 

(largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, 

bluegill) and Pomoxis spp. (crappies)), 

and bullhead catfishes (Ameiurus spp.) 

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)) reach 

of the Middle Fork Willamette River in 

the vicinity of Dexter and Lookout Point 

Reservoirs in Lane County, Oregon; this 

reach represented just 2 percent of the 

species’ historical range (58 FR 53800). 

Very small numbers of the species, 

between 1 and 7 individuals, were 

found at the remaining 8 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 

On October 18, 1993, we listed the 

Oregon chub as endangered under the 

Endangered Species Act (Act) (58 FR 

53800), and concluded that the 

designation of critical habitat was 

prudent but not determinable. A 

recovery plan for the Oregon chub 

(Recovery Plan) was completed in 1998 

(USFWS 1998). The 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 subbasins 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 criteria 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 assured in perpetuity. 

On June 17, 1999, we published a Safe 

Harbor Policy 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 (62 FR 32717). 

Safe Harbor Agreements (SHAs) manage 

habitat for listed species, and provide 

assurances to landowners that 

additional land, water, and/or natural 

resource use restrictions will not be 

imposed as a result of their voluntary 

conservation actions to benefit covered 

species. In 2001 and 2007, Safe Harbor 

Agreements (SHAs) for the Oregon chub 

were established in Lane County, 

Oregon (66 FR 30745, June 7, 2001; 72 

FR 50976, September 5, 2007). These 

two SHAs established new populations 

of Oregon chub in artificial ponds as 

refugia for natural populations, and 

contribute to the conservation of the 

species by reducing the risk of the 

complete loss of donor populations and 

any of their unique genetic material. 

On March 8, 2007, we issued a notice 

that we would begin a status review of 

the Oregon chub (72 FR 10547). On 

March 9, 2007, the Institute for Wildlife 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
11012 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Protection (IWP) 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). 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. 

On March 10, 2009, we published a 

proposed rule in the Federal Register to 

designate critical habitat for the Oregon 

chub (74 FR 10412), and accepted 

public comments for 60 days (March 

10–May 10, 2009). On September 22, 

2009, we announced the reopening of 

the public comment period for 30 days 

(September 22–October 22, 2009); the 

availability of a draft economic analysis 

(DEA) and amended required 

determinations section of the proposal; 

and a public hearing to be held on 

October 5, 2009, in Corvallis, Oregon. 

The public was invited to review and 

comment on any of the above actions 

associated with the proposed critical 

habitat designation at the scheduled 

public hearing or in writing (74 FR 

48211). 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), the 

Recovery Plan, or the May 15, 2009, 

proposed rule to reclassify the Oregon 

chub from endangered to threatened 

status based on a thorough review of the 

best available scientific data, which 

indicated that the species’ status has 

improved such that it is not currently in 

danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range (74 FR 

22870). 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

We requested written comments from 

the public on the proposed designation 

of critical habitat for the Oregon chub 

during the March 10–May 10, 2009, 

comment period. We also contacted 

appropriate Federal, State, and local 

agencies, scientific organizations, and 

other interested parties and invited 

them to comment on the proposed rule 

and the draft economic analysis. During 

the March 10–May 10, 2009, comment 

period, we received a request for a 

public hearing from the IWP. Section 

4(b)(5)(E) of the Act requires that one 

public hearing be held on a proposed 

regulation if any person files a request 

for such a hearing within 45–days after 

the date of publication of a proposed 

rule. We held a public hearing in 

Corvallis, Oregon on October 5, 2009; 

however, no one attended. During the 

September 22–October 22, 2009, 

comment period, the IWP resubmitted 

their earlier comments and requested 

another public hearing, however, since 

we held a public hearing on October 5, 

2009, a second public hearing was not 

required. Furthermore, given the lack of 

attendance at the October 5, 2009, 

hearing, we determined that a second 

hearing was not necessary. 

We received six comments in 

response to the proposed rule. Four 

comment letters were received during 

the March 10–May 10, 2009, comment 

period from two peer reviewers, the 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(ODFW), and the IWP. Two comment 

letters were received during the 

September 22–October 22, 2009, 

comment period from one peer reviewer 

and the IWP. No comments were 

received regarding the DEA. All 

substantive comments have been either 

incorporated into the final 

determination or are addressed below. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our policy 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited 

expert opinions from three 

knowledgeable individuals with 

scientific expertise that included 

familiarity with the species, the 

geographic region in which the species 

occurs, and conservation biology 

principles. We received responses from 

each of the peer reviewers that we 

contacted. The peer reviewers generally 

agreed we relied on the best scientific 

information available, accurately 

described the species and its habitat 

requirements (primary constituent 

elements (PCEs)), accurately 

characterized the reasons for the 

species’ decline and the threats to its 

habitat, and concurred with our critical 

habitat selection criteria and the use of 

the Recovery Plan as a foundation for 

the proposed designation. The peer 

reviewers provided additional 

information, clarifications, and 

suggestions to improve the final critical 

habitat rule. Recommended editorial 

revisions and clarifications have been 

incorporated into the final rule as 

appropriate. We respond to all 

substantive comments below. 

Peer Reviewer Comments 

Comment 1: One peer reviewer 

commented that there was no 

discussion in the Primary Constituent 

Elements section of connectivity 

corridors for the maintenance of gene 

flow between populations, or to allow 

natural recolonization of additional 

habitat. 

Our Response: Connectivity corridors 

and periodic or seasonal connections 

were historically part of the Oregon 

chub’s life history and were certainly 

the mechanism to provide for gene flow 

and natural colonization of new 

habitats. Now that most of the 

tributaries in the Willamette River basin 

have been impacted by dams and 

diversions, the Oregon chub’s naturally 

connected habitat has been altered. 

Given the very serious risk of predation 

and competition from nonnative fish, 

connectivity now represents a threat to 

the Oregon chub in many locations. The 

Recovery Plan opts for a combination of 

approaches to recover the Oregon 

chub—from isolated, intensively 

managed ponds to more natural restored 

floodplain habitats. It is likely that 

populations will fall along this 

spectrum, and that Oregon chub 

recovery will be achieved through a 

variety of strategies (USFWS 1998, pp. 

86–87). Establishing connectivity 

corridors may not be an optimal 

recovery strategy for many populations, 

given the nonnative species predation 

and competition threat. The species 

currently thrives in locations that are 

isolated and protected from that threat. 

Endangered Species Permit TE– 

818627–9 authorizes the ODFW to 

conduct Oregon chub population 

estimates, distribution surveys, collect 

life-history data, and conduct 

translocations or reintroductions 

following the guidelines presented in 

the Recovery Plan. Recovery Task 2.3 in 

the Recovery Plan states that 

reintroduction stock should be taken 

from within the sub-basin that contains 

the new site, and that successive 

introductions within a sub-basin should 

come from a variety of source 

populations to ensure a diverse genetic 

makeup to the metapopulation within a 

sub-basin (USFWS 1998, p. 41). ODFW’s 

authorized activities under the 

translocation and reintroduction 

guidelines are intended to address some 

of the concerns related to gene flow 

maintenance. The Recovery Plan 

acknowledges the need for a 

combination of approaches to recover 

Oregon chub, from isolated, intensively 

managed ponds to more natural restored 

floodplain habitats (USFWS 1998, pp. 

85–86). 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 11013 

Comment 2: One peer reviewer 

commented that PCE 3 (late spring and 

summer subsurface water temperatures 

between 15 and 25 C) is incomplete, 

stating that they would have included 

other water quality factors such as the 

absence or low level of contaminants. 

Our Response: In determining the 

PCEs for Oregon chub, we relied on the 

best scientific data available. Research 

has identified definitive temperature 

thresholds for the species for 

reproductive activity and other lifehistory needs, but has not explicitly 

defined characteristics of good water 

quality for the species beyond that 

attribute. We address several water 

quality characteristics in the Special 

Management Considerations or 

Protections section below, including 

protecting Oregon chub critical habitat 

areas from agricultural and forestry 

chemical runoff. Habitats that express 

the presence of PCE 2 (appropriate 

levels of aquatic vegetation that hosts 

abundant food for chub) would 

presumably be representative of habitats 

having good water quality 

characteristics. 

Comment 3: One peer reviewer 

suggested that PCE 4 (no or negligible 

levels of nonnative aquatic predatory or 

competitive species) is rather unspecific 

and that the term ‘negligible’ may be 

difficult to characterize in practice. 

Our Response: We are unaware of any 

scientific data that presents a definitive 

numerical threshold of competitive and 

predatory nonnative fish species that 

would be detrimental to a population of 

Oregon chub. We use the term 

‘negligible’ to acknowledge the 

possibility that a population of Oregon 

chub may be able to persist in the 

presence of some level of nonnative 

competing species, which may depend 

on population ratios, the biology of the 

nonnative species involved, or other 

physical, biological, or hydrological 

factors. However, currently available 

scientific information indicates that 

Oregon chub and nonnative predators 

are not able to coexist at most sites, and 

where they do the Oregon chub 

populations remain at low levels. 

Comments from States 

We received several recommendations 

for minor corrections to the critical 

habitat unit descriptions from the 

ODFW, which have been incorporated 

into this final rule. Other substantive 

comments received from the ODFW are 

addressed below. 

Comment 4: The context and 

importance of the population threshold 

of 500 adults was not explained in the 

Physical and Biological Features–Flow 

Velocities and Depth section of the 

proposed rule. The ODFW 

recommended that the final rule explain 

that this population threshold was 

based on delisting criteria identified in 

the Recovery Plan. 

Our Response: We have revised the 

section accordingly. 

Comment 5: Several sites with 

abundance levels of fewer than 500 fish 

are capable of supporting large 

populations and are essential to the 

recovery of the species. The ODFW 

identified three sites that they believe 

contain all of the PCEs, and 

recommended that they be designated as 

critical habitat: (1) Pioneer Park 

backwater, Santiam sub-basin; (2) 

Sprick Pond, Coast Fork Willamette subbasin; and (3) Haws Pond, Elijah 

Bristow South Slough and sites 

RM198.6 and RM199.5, Middle Fork 

Willamette sub-basin. The ODFW 

commented that several areas proposed 

as critical habitat for Oregon chub were 

at very low population levels for many 

years before increasing rapidly in 

abundance, including Unit 3J Buckhead 

Creek and Unit 3K Wicopee Pond. 

Our Response: In the critical habitat 

selection criteria of the proposed rule, 

we described the rule set used to 

identify proposed critical habitat areas. 

This critical habitat designation focuses 

on sites where we have the most 

confidence that the Oregon chub 

populations can achieve recovery 

criteria, based on the best available 

scientific information. The 2007 survey 

results for the Pioneer Park backwater 

site documented 420 fish; Sprick Pond 

is a new site that had 19 Oregon chub 

introduced in 2008; and Oregon chub 

surveys in Hawes Pond documented 382 

fish in 2007 and 277 in 2008. Each of 

the sites being designated as critical 

habitat in this final rule has been 

surveyed annually over several years, 

with the initial survey data for some 

critical habitat units conducted in the 

early 1990s (e.g., Shady Dell Pond (Unit 

3I), Elijah Bristow State Park, Berry 

Slough (Unit 3B)) (Sheerer 2007a, p. 2). 

However, there is insufficient annual 

survey data to demonstrate whether the 

population trend is stable or increasing 

in any of the additional locations 

suggested by the ODFW. We have no 

survey data from the Elijah Bristow 

South Slough and RM 196.8 and 199.5 

sites, and are uncertain as to their 

specific location. However, based on the 

Recovery Plan, we have determined that 

designating critical habitat in 25 sites 

will be sufficient to meet recovery goals 

(see below discussion). Although the 

additional sites suggested by the ODFW 

may have an important role in Oregon 

chub conservation, they are not 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. Each of the sites designated in 

this final rule meet the definition of 

critical habitat under section 3(5)(a) of 

the Act, and is consistent with the 

criteria described in the Criteria Used to 

Identify Critical Habitat section below. 

Although the Recovery Plan calls for 

establishing and maintaining a 

minimum of 20 populations, we are 

designating critical habitat for 25 

populations, 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. 

Importantly, 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 

undertaken in areas outside of critical 

habitat are subject to review under 

section 7 of the Act to ensure that they 

are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the Oregon chub. 

The prohibitions of section 9 against the 

take of listed species also apply, 

regardless of critical habitat designation. 

Comment 6: The ODFW suggested 

more unoccupied off-channel habitat in 

the Jasper to Dexter reach of the Middle 

Fork Willamette sub-basin should be 

designated as critical habitat. The 

ODFW commented that these habitats 

are essential for the conservation of the 

species and present the best 

opportunities to establish additional 

Oregon chub populations in connected 

habitats. They advised that habitats in 

this reach currently support several 

stable and abundant Oregon chub 

populations with minimal numbers of 

nonnative fishes, and that these habitats 

are necessary to recover the species. 

Our Response: The critical habitat 

selection criteria in the proposed rule 

identified sites that currently support at 

least 500 adult Oregon chub, or those 

that currently express sufficient PCEs to 

support at least 500 adult Oregon chub 

and have done so in the past. We were 

not aware of the unoccupied off-channel 

habitat areas being suggested by ODFW 

when we developed the proposed rule, 

and did not have survey data for those 

locations. The ODFW has since clarified 

that the RM 196.8 and 199.5 sites and 

the Elijah Bristow South Slough sites 

referenced in their comments are within 

the Jasper to Dexter reach of the Middle 

Fork Willamette sub-basin. Although 

initially thought to be unoccupied, 

ODFW surveys conducted in 2008 

documented one Oregon chub each in 

the RM 196.8 and RM 199.5 localities. 

Since the sites suggested are either 

unoccupied or currently support few 

Oregon chub, they would not satisfy the 

500 adult fish or 5–year stability 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
11014 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

thresholds identified in the critical 

habitat selection criteria. However, 

although these sites are inconsistent 

with the selection criteria, they may 

represent habitat that has potential 

conservation value. The fact that a 

particular area is not designated as 

critical habitat does not imply that it 

does not have an important role in the 

conservation of the Oregon chub. 

Comment 7: Runoff of forestry 

chemicals is a threat to several sites, 

which should be acknowledged in the 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protections section discussion. 

Our Response: The Special 

Management Considerations or 

Protections section has been revised 

accordingly. 

Comment 8: The ODFW identified 

additional Special Management 

Considerations or Protections needs for 

several of the units, including: (1) Units 

3G East Fork Minnow Creek Pond and 

3K Wicopee Pond, which require 

special management to prevent the 

introduction or further introduction of 

nonnative fishes; (2) Unit 3A Fall Creek 

Spillway Ponds, which require special 

management to prevent or set back 

vegetative succession; and (3) Units 1A 

Santiam I–5 Side Channels, 2B(5) Finley 

Gray Creek Swamp and 3G East Fork 

Minnow Creek Road, which require 

special management to maintain water 

quality and reduce the incursion of 

potentially hazardous agricultural and 

forestry chemicals into Oregon chub 

critical habitat areas. 

Our Response: We have revised the 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protections discussion accordingly. 

Public Comments 

Comment 9: Relying on absolute 

population size rather than effective 

population size to establish the criteria 

for selecting critical habitat is 

inadequate; relying on the Recovery 

Plan to develop the critical habitat 

selection criteria is invalid for the same 

reason. 

Our Response: We agree that using 

effective population size would be an 

optimal approach for monitoring the 

status of Oregon chub populations in 

the designated critical habitat units. 

Effective population size (the average 

number of individuals in a population 

that are assumed to contribute genes 

equally to the next generation) is a 

genetic concept used in conservation 

planning, and is generally a smaller 

number than the total number of 

individuals in the population. The 

sampling protocol used to count and 

estimate Oregon chub population size 

employs an adult fish mark-recapture 

approach using seines, baited minnow 

traps, dip nets, or gill net panels 

depending on specific habitat 

conditions. Sampling is conducted over 

a percentage of the surface area at each 

site and within each of the habitat types 

present (Sheerer 2002, p. 1071). 

However, based on the best scientific 

and commercial data available, we are 

unable to determine the effective 

population size for any of the Oregon 

chub populations for which we are 

designating critical habitat in this final 

rule. 

Each area designated as critical 

habitat in this final rule: 

(1) Is based on the best scientific 

information available; 

(2) has been informed by more than 

20 years of research (including 

population monitoring); 

(3) contains the essential physical and 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species; 

(4) is consistent with the Recovery 

Plan, which was peer reviewed and 

developed with help from 

knowledgeable individuals with 

scientific expertise and familiarity with 

the species; and 

(5) is consistent with the methodology 

used to identify critical habitat units. 

Using the Recovery Plan as the standard 

against which to measure Oregon chub 

recovery is appropriate and consistent 

with the best scientific data available 

standard we are required to apply under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act. 

Comment 10: Global warming and 

climate change are certain to 

significantly degrade Oregon chub 

habitat in the future, but the proposal 

provided no analysis in this regard. 

Our Response: We agree that 

predicted global climate change appears 

likely to pose additional threats to the 

Oregon chub. In the proposed rule, we 

acknowledged that the designation of 

critical habitat may not include all areas 

that we may eventually determine are 

necessary for Oregon chub recovery. 

However, we currently do not have 

scientific data specific to the Oregon 

chub or its habitat that suggest what, if 

any, additional areas may be essential to 

the conservation of the species in light 

of climate change. The units being 

designated as critical habitat occur over 

a range of elevations and encompass 

large sites that provide for habitat 

heterogeneity and redundancy. We 

believe that this approach provides a 

buffer against environmental effects that 

may result from changing climate 

conditions in the Willamette Basin. 

Critical habitat designations are made 

on the basis of the best available 

information at the time of designation, 

and do not control the direction and 

substance of future recovery efforts if 

new information becomes available. If 

new scientific information related to 

climate change and its relation to 

sensitive habitats in the Willamette 

Valley becomes available in the future, 

we will fully consider that information 

in our recovery efforts. In addition, 

section 4(B)(2) of the Act provides for 

making revisions to critical habitat, 

based on the best scientific data 

available if a revision is appropriate. 

Comment 11: Several Clean Air Act 

nonattainment areas lie within or near 

the range of this species; the 

susceptibility of certain organisms such 

as lichens to acid precipitation is quite 

high; the susceptibility of oaks and 

ponderosa pine should be considered by 

the Service; use of herbicides, 

pesticides, and other chemical agents is 

known to have damaged animal 

populations, even though the 

phenomenon has been little studied; a 

variety of chemical herbicides have 

been used in habitat areas; pesticides 

have been used to kill various insects 

occurring in habitat areas; endocrine 

disrupters have been demonstrated in 

numerous species and are known to 

produce transgenerational effects. 

Our Response: Based on the general 

nature of the comment, we were unable 

to establish any particular relevance to 

the proposed designation of critical 

habitat for the Oregon chub. See the 

response to comment 2 for a discussion 

of water quality considerations. 

Comment 12: The critical habitat 

being designated is not adequate for 

recovery of the species. 

Our Response: We disagree. The 

proposed designation is consistent with 

the delisting criteria identified in the 

Recovery Plan, which was peer 

reviewed and developed with help from 

knowledgeable individuals with 

scientific expertise and familiarity with 

the species. Moreover, the commenter 

did not identify any additional areas 

that might be essential for the recovery 

of the species. 

Comment 13: The Federal Register 

notice failed to adequately inform the 

public by not providing information on: 

(1) occupied habitat that was not 

proposed as critical habitat; (2) 

unoccupied but suitable habitat that was 

not proposed as critical habitat; (3) 

previously occupied or likely to have 

been occupied habitat that is currently 

unoccupied and not proposed as critical 

habitat; (4) whether the amount or 

quality of occupied habitat is increased 

by the designation of critical habitat; 

and (5), whether occupied habitat that 

has been adversely affected was not 

proposed as critical habitat for that 

reason. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 11015 

Our Response: We disagree that the 

above information was required to be 

included in the proposed rule. However, 

in the proposed rule we identified a 

point of contact for additional 

information in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. We also 

provided an opportunity for interested 

parties to obtain additional information 

during the informal session before the 

public hearing that was held in 

Corvallis, Oregon on October 5, 2009. In 

the Criteria Used to Identify Critical 

Habitat section of the proposed rule, we 

described the rule set we used to 

identify proposed critical habitat areas. 

Each of the sites designated in this final 

rule meets the definition of critical 

habitat under section 3(5)(a) of the Act, 

after applying the criterion described in 

the Criteria used to Identify Critical 

Habitat section below. The final 

designation does not increase the 

quantity or quality of any occupied 

habitat, but does specify those areas that 

are essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Summary of Changes from the 

Proposed Rule 

1. In response to a comment from the 

ODFW, we clarified the context and 

importance of the population threshold 

of 500 adults as discussed in the 

Recovery Plan in the Physical and 

Biological Features–Space for 

Individual and Population Growth and 

Normal Behavior, and in the Criteria 

Used to Identify Critical Habitat sections 

of the final rule. 

2. In response to a comment from the 

ODFW, we added forestry chemicals to 

the discussion of the threat of 

agricultural chemical runoff in the 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protections section of the final rule. 

3. In response to a comment from the 

ODFW, we revised the Special 

Management Considerations or 

Protections section of the final rule by 

adding the following information: 

• Units 3G East Fork Minnow Creek 

Pond and 3K Wicopee Pond require 

special management to prevent the 

introduction or further introduction 

of nonnative fishes. 

• Unit 3A Fall Creek Spillway Ponds 

requires special management to 

prevent or set back vegetative 

succession. 

• Units 1A Santiam I–5 Side Channels, 

2B(5) Finley Gray Creek Swamp, 

and 3G East Fork Minnow Creek 

Road require special management to 

reduce the incursion of potentially 

hazardous agricultural and forestry 

chemicals into Oregon chub 

habitats and to maintain water 

quality. 

4. We made the following revisions to 

the Critical Habitat Designation section: 

• In Unit 3E Dexter Reservoir RV Alcove 

(DEX 3) we clarified that the 

connection to Dexter Reservoir is 

through a culvert. 

• In Unit 3H Hospital Pond we clarified 

that the site is spring fed, rather 

than fed by Hospital Creek. 

• In Unit 3K Wicopee Pond we clarified 

that although the site currently has 

no nonnative predatory or 

competitive species, a potential 

threat from the introduction of 

nonnative species exists. 

Critical Habitat 

Background 

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

of the Act as: 

1. The specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

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 the 

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. 

Such methods and procedures include, 

but are not limited to, all activities 

associated with scientific resources 

management such as research, census, 

law enforcement, habitat acquisition 

and maintenance, propagation, live 

trapping, and transplantation, and, in 

the extraordinary case where population 

pressures within a given ecosystem 

cannot be otherwise relieved, may 

include regulated taking. 

Critical habitat receives protection 

under section 7 of the Act through the 

prohibition against Federal agencies 

carrying out, funding, or authorizing the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. Section 7(a)(2) 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 the 

government or public to access private 

lands. Such designation does not 

require implementation of restoration, 

recovery, or enhancement measures by 

non-Federal landowners. Where a 

landowner seeks or requests Federal 

agency funding or authorization for an 

action that may affect a listed species or 

critical habitat, the consultation 

requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the 

Act would apply, but even in the event 

of a destruction or adverse modification 

finding, Federal action agency’s and the 

applicant’s obligation is not to restore or 

recover the species, but to implement 

reasonable and prudent alternatives to 

avoid destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. 

For inclusion in a critical habitat 

designation, the habitat within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it was listed must 

contain the physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species, and may be included only 

if those features may require special 

management considerations or 

protection. Critical habitat designations 

identify, to the extent known using the 

best scientific and commercial data 

available, habitat areas that provide 

essential life-cycle needs of the species 

(areas on which are found the physical 

and biological features laid out in the 

appropriate quantity and spatial 

arrangement for the conservation of the 

species). Under the Act and regulations 

at 50 CFR 424.12, we can designate 

critical habitat in areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it is listed only when 

we determine that those areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species and that designation limited to 

those areas occupied at the time of 

listing would be inadequate to ensure 

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 and commercial 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)), the Information Quality Act 

(section 515 of the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act for 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
11016 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 

5658)), and our associated Information 

Quality Guidelines provide criteria, 

establish procedures, and provide 

guidance to ensure that our decisions 

are based on the best scientific data 

available. They require our 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 designated 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. Substantive 

comments received in response to 

proposed critical habitat designations 

are also considered. 

Habitat is often dynamic, and species 

may move from one area to another over 

time. Furthermore, we recognize that 

critical habitat designated at a particular 

point in time may not include all of the 

habitat areas that we may later 

determine are necessary for the recovery 

of the species. 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. Areas 

that support populations are also subject 

to the regulatory protections afforded by 

the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard, as 

determined on the basis of the best 

available 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 at 

the time of these planning efforts calls 

for a different outcome. 

Methods 

As required by section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act, we used the best scientific data 

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), the 

Recovery Plan (USFWS 1998), and 

annual surveys conducted by the ODFW 

from 1992 through 2008 (summarized in 

Scheerer et al. 2007 and Scheerer 

2008a). Additionally we utilized 

regional Geographic Information System 

(GIS) shape files for area calculations 

and mapping. 

Physical and Biological Features 

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 

considered 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 essential for the 

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 derived the specific PCEs required 

for the Oregon chub from the biological 

needs of the species as described in the 

Background section of this rule and the 

following information: 

Space for Individual and Population 

Growth and Normal Behavior 

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, pp. 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-moving fish 

(Pearsons 1989, pp. 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 (0.12 

ac) or more of aquatic surface area 

between 0.5–2.0 m (1.6–6.6 ft) deep 

(Scheerer 2008b). Adequate aquatic 

surface area for 500 or more individuals 

is significant because the Recovery Plan 

identifies populations at or above the 

500 adult threshold as one of the 

delisting criteria for the species (USFWS 

1998, p. 28). 

Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or 

Other Requirements 

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, pp. 41–42). 

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 F)C (61 

F) or 16 C (59 subsurface water 

temperatures exceed 15 (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 F).C (59 and 77 

temperatures between approximately 15 

and 25 The upper lethal temperature for 

the fish F) in laboratory studies 

(Scheerer and ApkeC (88 was 

determined to be 31 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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 11017 

productivity and frequent algal blooms 

that might cause natural variability in 

water quality, especially dissolved 

oxygen levels (Scheerer and Apke 1997, 

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 Oregon chub populations 

is threatened due to their proximity to 

areas of human activity. Many of the 

known populations 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 herbicides; 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). 

Cover or Shelter 

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). Oregon chub in similar size 

classes school together. A minimum of 

250 square meters (0.06 ac) (or between 

approximately 25 and 100 percent of the 

total surface area of the habitat) covered 

with aquatic vegetation is needed to 

provide for the 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. (pondlily), 

and Potamogeton spp. (pondweed) 

(Scheerer 2008c). 

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). 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). 

Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, and 

Rearing (or Development) 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 C (59chub spawn from April 

through September, when temperatures 

exceed 15 F), with peak activity in July. 

Approximately 150 to 650 eggs will be 

released per spawning event, hatching 

within 10 to 14 days. Females prefer a 

highly organic, vegetative substrate for 

spawning and will lay their adhesive 

eggs directly on the submerged 

vegetation (Pearsons 1989, pp. 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 (Those protected from 

anthropogenic disturbance or that are 

representative of the historical and 

ecological distribution of a species.) 

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 

surveyed habitats 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; Meffe 

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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
11018 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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 (PCEs) for 

the Oregon Chub 

Pursuant to our regulations, we are 

required to identify the known physical 

and biological features essential to the 

conservation of the Oregon chub and 

which may require special management 

considerations or protection. These 

features are the primary constituent 

elements (PCEs) laid out in the 

appropriate quantity and spatial 

arrangement essential for the 

conservation of the species. The PCEs 

are listed below. All areas designated as 

critical habitat for Oregon chub are 

either occupied or within the species’ 

historical geographic range. 

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 lifehistory 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 (0.12 ac) 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 square meters (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 are 

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 F), with natural diurnal andC (59 

and 78 temperatures between 15 and 25 

seasonal variation. 

4. No or negligible levels of nonnative 

aquatic predatory or competitive 

species. Negligible is defined for the 

purpose of this 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 are provided 

by PCE (4). 

This final critical habitat 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 designated 

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 lifehistory functions, and areas not 

occupied at time of listing but 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 used the best scientific data 

available in determining areas that 

contain the features that are essential to 

the conservation of the Oregon chub. 

We only designated areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species when a designation limited to 

its present range would be inadequate to 

ensure the conservation of the species 

(50 CFR 424.12(e)). 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 occupied sites 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. Because we found that areas 

occupied at time of listing were not 

sufficient to conserve the species, we 

then identified any additional sites that 

were not occupied at the time of listing 

but 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 of 

Oregon chub 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. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 11019 

5. Our final step was to evaluate the 

36 occupied sites within the context of 

the 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 selection criteria: 

A. 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 7 years (USFWS 1998, p. 

28)), and also sites that were likely to 

meet the delisting criteria in the near 

future. Eighteen sites had at least 500 

adults and were likely to have a stable 

or increasing trend over 7 years in the 

near future. Of the 18 sites meeting this 

selection criterion, 9 sites were 

occupied at the time of listing: 

• Unit 2B(5), Finley Gray Creek Swamp 

• Unit 3B, Elijah Bristow State Park— 

Berry Slough 

• Unit 3E, Dexter Reservoir RV Alcove— 

DEX3 

• Unit 3F, Dexter Reservoir Alcove PIT 

1 

• Unit 3G, East Fork Minnow Creek 

Pond Unit 

• Unit 3H, Hospital Pond 

• Unit 3I, Shady Dell Pond 

• Unit 3J, Buckhead Creek, and 

• Unit 3K, Wicopee Pond. 

Three other sites supported naturally 

occurring populations but were not 

occupied at the time of listing: 

• Unit 1B(1), Geren Island North 

Channel 

• Unit 1B(4), Gray Slough, and 

• Unit 3D, Elijah Bristow State Park 

Island Pond. 

In addition, six sites supported 

introduced populations: 

• Unit 1C, Foster Pullout Pond 

• Unit 2A(1), Russell Pond 

• Unit 2B(1), Ankeny Willow Marsh 

• Unit 2B(2), Dunn Wetland 

• Unit 2B(4), Finley Cheadle Pond, and 

• Unit 3A, Fall Creek Spillway Ponds. 

B. Sites that are capable of supporting 

large populations. 

Because the Recovery Plan calls for 

establishing and maintaining a 

minimum of 20 populations that meet 

the recovery criteria, we identified 

seven currently occupied sites that did 

not meet the first criterion (above) but 

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. 

C. Sites representative of the 

geographic distribution of Oregon chub. 

The delisting criteria outlined in the 

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 designated as critical habitat 

in the Santiam River watershed, 8 sites 

are being designated as critical habitat 

in the Mainstem Willamette River 

watershed, and 11 sites are being 

designated 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 

designating 25 units as critical habitat. 

Although the 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 pressures or other factors. 

After applying the above criteria, we 

mapped the critical habitat unit 

boundaries at each of the 25 sites. 

Mapping was completed using GIS 

shape files, which 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 highwater mark at least every 30 m (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 

Oregon 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 

designated 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 designated 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 

designated 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 or forestry 

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 level 

due to regulated flow management at 

flood control dams, as well as low 

summer water levels. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
11020 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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 designated 

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. 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. Table 1 identifies units 

that may require special management to 

reduce or eradicate the threat posed by 

nonnative fishes already present and 

units that may require special 

management to prevent the introduction 

of nonnative fish. 

Although Oregon chub require a 

mixture of submergent, emergent, and 

floating aquatic vegetation (including 

algae) for cover and spawning (see PCE 

2), 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. Table 1 

identifies units that may require special 

management to prevent or set back 

vegetative succession before that habitat 

is no longer suitable for Oregon chub. 

Some units require special 

management to avoid the degradation of 

water quality in Oregon chub habitats 

due to agricultural and forestry 

chemical runoff, and their close 

proximity to roads and railroads. 

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). Table 

1 identifies units that may require 

special management to reduce the 

incursion of potentially hazardous 

agricultural and forestry chemicals into 

Oregon chub habitats and to maintain 

water quality. 

Although Oregon chub utilize fine 

silty substrates, excessive 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. Excessive 

sedimentation can also lead to the 

succession of open water habitats to wet 

meadow, as has been discussed above. 

Table 1 identifies units that may require 

special management to alleviate the 

threat posed by excess watershed 

siltation due to logging and other 

activities. 

Special management is required in 

several of the designated critical habitat 

units to maintain the water quality 

required by Oregon chub and protect 

against the impacts of several potential 

water quality threats. 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; USFWS 1998, 

p. 14). Water quality investigations at 

sites in the Middle Fork and mainstem 

Willamette sub-basins 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 

(absence of oxygen) conditions 

unsuitable for chub, or increased plant 

and algal growth that severely reduce 

habitat availability because of 

succession. Table 1 identifies units that 

may require monitoring and special 

management to ameliorate the effects of 

excessive nutrient levels in Oregon chub 

habitats, and to provide protection 

against accidental sources of 

contamination. 

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. 

Table 1 identifies units that may require 

special management to ameliorate the 

effects of fluctuating or reduced water 

levels for the Oregon chub. 

In summary, we find that each of the 

areas we are designating 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 designated 

critical habitat units provide to the 

Oregon chub. A more comprehensive 

discussion of threats facing individual 

sites is in the individual unit 

descriptions. 

Table 1—Special management needs or considerations in critical habitat units for the Oregon chub. 

Unit 

Manage to Reduce 

or Eradicate 

Nonnative Fish 

Manage to Prevent 

Nonnative Fish 

Introduction 

Manage to Prevent 

Excessive 

Sedimentation 

Manage to Maintain 

Water Quality 

Manage to Maintain 

Appropriate Water 

Levels 

1A Santiam I-5 Side Channels X X X X 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 11021 

Table 1—Special management needs or considerations in critical habitat units for the Oregon chub.—Continued 

Unit 

Manage to Reduce 

or Eradicate 

Nonnative Fish 

Manage to Prevent 

Nonnative Fish 

Introduction 

Manage to Prevent 

Excessive 

Sedimentation 

Manage to Maintain 

Water Quality 

Manage to Maintain 

Appropriate Water 

Levels 

1B(1) Geren Island North 

Channel 

X X X 

1B(2) Stayton Public Works 

Pond 

X X X 

1B(3) South Stayton Pond X 

1B(4) Gray Slough X X X 

1C Foster Pullout Pond X 

2A(1) Russell Pond X 

2A(2) Shetzline Pond X 

2A(3) Big Island X X 

2B(1) Ankeny Willow Marsh X 

2B(2) Dunn Wetland X 

2B(3) Finley Display Pond X 

2B(4) Finley Cheadle Pond X 

2B(5) Finley Gray Creek 

Swamp 

X X X X 

3A Fall Creek Spillway Ponds X X X 

3B Elijah Bristow SP Barry 

Slough 

X 

3C Elijah Bristow SP 

Northeast Slough 

X X X 

3D Elijah Bristow SP Island 

Pond 

X X X 

3E Dexter Reservoir RV 

Alcove (DEX 3) 

X X X 

3F Dexter Reservoir Alcove 

(PIT 1) 

X X X X 

3G East Fork Minnow Creek 

Pond 

X X X 

3H Hospital Pond X X X 

3I Shady Dell Pond X X 

3J Buckhead Creek X X X 

3K Wicopee Pond X X 

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. 

Final Critical Habitat Designation 

We are designating 25 units totaling 

approximately 53 ha (132 acres), 

including land under State, Federal, 

other government, and private 

ownership. The areas we describe below 

constitute our best assessment at this 

time of areas that meet the definition of 

critical habitat for the Oregon chub. The 

units 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. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
11022 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Table 2 shows the occupied unit, land 

ownership, and approximate area. 

Table 2—Critical habitat units designated for the Oregon chub (Totals in table and in unit descriptions 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 

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 

Each of the critical habitat units 

below takes into account the results of 

population abundance estimates 

reported in the Oregon Department of 

Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) Oregon Chub 

Investigations Progress Reports (Sheerer 

2007 a, p. 2; 2008a). The ODFW 

initiated Oregon chub population 

abundance surveys in the early 1990’s, 

and each of the units being designated 

has abundance and trend data reflecting 

capability of achieving the recovery 

criteria in the Recovery Plan. We 

present a brief description of each unit, 

and reasons why it meets the definition 

of critical habitat for the Oregon chub, 

below: 

Area 1: Santiam River Basin—Linn and 

Marion Counties, Oregon 

A. Mainstem Santiam River 

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 substrate is composed 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 11023 

of 80 percent silt and organic material, 

and there is a variety of emergent and 

submergent vegetation covering 65 

percent of the surface area. The 

maximum water depth is approximately 

3 m (9.8 ft), averaging 1.5 m (4.9 ft), and 

the temperature was recorded at F) on 

July 30, 2008.C (60 and 67 between 19.5 

and 21 Beaver have been observed at 

this location. This site is at risk of 

vegetative cover reaching levels 

detrimental to Oregon chub habitat 

through succession. 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 Santiam River 

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 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. The 

maximum water depth is 2.2 m (7.2 Cft), 

averaging 1.8 m (5.9 ft), and the 

temperature was recorded at 26 F) on 

July 10, 2008.(79 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 excessive 

sedimentation due to logging in the 

watershed. 

Unit 1B(2), 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 

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 maximum water depth 

is 2 m (6.6 ft) deep, C (77.9averaging 1.2 

m (3.9 ft), and the temperature was 

recorded at 25.5 F) on July 9, 2008. 

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 1,700 individuals and 

appears to be stable or increasing. The 

habitat contains all of the PCEs. 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 maximum water depth 

is 1.6 m (5.3 C (76.1ft), averaging 0.9 m 

(3 ft), and the temperature was recorded 

at 24.5 F) on July 9, 2008. 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 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. The 

maximum water depth is 2.5 m (8.2 ft), 

averaging 1.2 m (3.9 ft), and the F) on 

July 31, 2008.C (74.3 temperature was 

recorded at 23.5 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 site’s location on a 

property with agricultural activity 

places it at risk of chemical runoff. 

C. South Santiam River 

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 2,600 individuals. 

The population has been stable for 5 

years, and the habitat contains all of the 

PCEs. 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. The 

maximum water depth is 2.0 m (6.6 ft), 

averaging 1.2 m (3.9 ft), and the F) on 

July 23, 2008.C (70 temperature was 

recorded at 21 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 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 maximum water depth 

is 2 m (6.6 ft), averaging 1.5 m (4.9 ft), 

and the temperature was recorded F) on 

July 23, 2008.C (65.3 at 18.5 The site is 

isolated from other water bodies, and 

has no competing or predatory 

nonnative species. Threats to the site 

include possible excessive 

sedimentation resulting from logging in 

the watershed. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
11024 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 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 

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 

maximum water depth is 2.5 m (8.2 F)C 

(68 ft), averaging 2 m (6.6 ft), and the 

temperature was recorded at 20 on July 

23, 2008. 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 

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. The 

maximum depth is 1.5 m (4.9 ft) deep, 

F)C (66 averaging 0.6 m (2.0 ft), and the 

temperature was recorded at 19 on July 

23, 2008. 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 36,500 

individuals and has been increasing. 

The habitat also contains all of the 

PCEs. 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. 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 F) on July 8, 2008.C (77 

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 facilitate 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 34,500 

individuals and has been stable for 5 

years. The habitat contains all of the 

PCEs. 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 

maximum depth is 1 m (3.3 ft), F)C (73 

averaging 0.6 m (2.0 ft), and the 

temperature was recorded at 23 on July 

28, 2008. 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 

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 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. The maximum depth is 2.5 

m (8.2 ft), averaging 1.5 m (4.9 ft), and 

the temperature was recorded F) on June 

20, 2008.C (66 at 19 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 substrate is composed of 100 

percent silt and organic material, and 

there is a variety of emergent and 

submergent aquatic vegetation covering 

86 percent of the surface area. The 

maximum depth is 3.3 m (10.8 ft), 

averaging 1.5 m (4.9 ft), and F) on June 

20, 2008.C (65.3 the temperature was 

recorded at 18.5 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 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 

maximum depth is 2.2 m (7.2 ft), F)C (72 

averaging 1 m (3.3 ft), and the 

temperature was recorded at 22 on July 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 11025 

28, 2008. 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 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. The maximum water depth 

is 1.8 m (5.9 Cft), averaging 0.7 m (2.3 

ft), and the temperature was recorded at 

23.5 F) on July 2, 2008.(74.3 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 highwater 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 mi)) below 

Dexter Dam. Almost the entire 1.6-km 

(1mi) 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 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 

maximum water depth is 2.5 m (8.2 ft), 

averaging 1.2 m (3.9 ft), and the 

temperature was recorded at between F) 

on July 16, 17, and 29, 2008.C (68 and 

77 20 and 25 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 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 

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. The 

maximum depth is 2 m (6.6 ft), 

averaging F) on JulyC (72 0.8 m (2.6 ft), 

and the temperature was recorded at 22 

22, 2008. 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 

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 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. The 

maximum depth is 2 m (6.6 ft), 

averaging 1.2 m (3.9 ft), and the 

temperature was F) at various locations 

within theC (64 and 77 recorded at 18 

and 25 site on July 17, 2008. 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 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. The maximum depth 

is 1 m (3.3 ft), averaging 0.7 m (2.3 ft), 

and the temperature was recorded F) on 

July 1, 2008.C (72.5 at 22.5 Competing 

and predatory nonnative species have 

been observed at this location. The site 

is connected to Dexter Reservoir via a 

culvert 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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
11026 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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 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. The maximum water depth is 1 m 

(3.3 ft), averaging 0.5 m (1.6 ft), and the 

temperature was F) on July 2, 2008.C (64 

recorded at 18 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 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 maximum depth is 1.2 

m (3.9 ft), F)C (66 averaging 0.5 m (1.6 

ft), and the temperature was recorded at 

19 on July 2, 2008. The site is isolated 

from other water bodies and has no 

competing or predatory nonnative 

species but is vulnerable to excessive 

sedimentation resulting from timber 

harvest in the watershed, resultant 

vegetative succession of open water 

habitat, and contamination-related 

water quality threats due to the site’s 

proximity to the highway. 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 fed by a spring that 

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 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 maximum water depth 

is 3 m (9.8 ft), averaging 2 m (6.6 ft), and 

the temperature on the flooded terrace 

was F) on July 1, 2008.C (59 recorded 

at 15 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 substrate is 100 percent silt 

and organic material, and there is a 

variety of emergent, submergent, and 

floating aquatic vegetation covering 82 

percent of the surface area. The 

maximum depth is 1.1 m (3.6 ft), 

averaging 0.5 m (1.6 ft), and the 

temperature F) on July 22, 2008.C (70 

was recorded at 21 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 to 

over 16 m (50 ft) 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 mi) 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 

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. 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 

F) on July 15 and July 21, 2008.C (64 

and 75 and 24 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 

excessive sedimentation from logging in 

the watershed as well as contaminationrelated water quality issues due to the 

site’s close proximity to the railroad. 

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 

substrate is 100 percent silt and organic 

material, and there is a variety of 

emergent, submergent, and floating 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 11027 

aquatic vegetation and algae covering 

100 percent of the surface area. The 

maximum depth is 2 m (6.6 ft), 

averaging 1.2 m (3.9 ft), and the 

temperature F) on June 30, 2008.C (63 

was recorded at 17 Beaver have been 

observed at this location and the site has 

no competing or predatory nonnative 

species, although the site remains at risk 

of the introduction of nonnative fishes. 

The site is at risk of excessive 

sedimentation resulting from logging in 

the watershed. 

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 Fifth and 

Ninth Circuits Court of Appeals 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, 442 (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, we determine destruction or 

adverse modification on the basis of 

whether, with implementation of the 

proposed Federal action, the affected 

critical habitat would remain functional 

(or retain those physical and biological 

features that relate to the ability of the 

area to periodically support the species) 

to serve its intended conservation role 

for the species. 

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 the species or to 

destroy or adversely modify its critical 

habitat. 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, 

we document compliance with the 

requirements of section 7(a)(2) through 

our 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, and are likely to 

adversely affect, listed species or critical 

habitat. 

When we issue a biological opinion 

concluding that a project is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

listed species or destroy or adversely 

modify 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: 

1. Can be implemented in a manner 

consistent with the intended purpose of 

the action; 

2. Can be implemented consistent 

with the scope of the Federal agency’s 

legal authority and jurisdiction; 

3.Are economically and 

technologically feasible; and 

4.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 we have 

listed a new species or subsequently 

designated critical habitat 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, 

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 or control may affect 

subsequently listed species or 

designated critical habitat. 

Federal activities that may affect the 

Oregon chub or its designated critical 

habitat require section 7 consultation 

under the Act. Activities on State, 

Tribal, local, or private lands requiring 

a Federal permit (such as a permit from 

the USACE 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 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 consultations. 

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 

analysis required by section 7(a)(2) of 

the Act 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 retain those PCEs that relate 

to the ability of the area to periodically 

support the species. 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. As discussed above, 

the role of critical habitat is to support 

the life-history needs of the species 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, activities 

involving a Federal action that may 

destroy or adversely modify such 

habitat, or that may be affected by such 

designation. Activities that, when 

carried out, funded, or authorized by a 

Federal agency, may affect critical 

habitat and therefore result in 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
11028 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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 column by 

activities such as release of 

contaminants into the surface water 

or connected groundwater at a point 

source or by dispersed release (nonpoint 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 

critical habitat unit 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 

through activities that negatively 

affect flows, water temperature, 

water quality, or other 

requirements. 

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 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 

designated as critical habitat to contain 

features essential to the conservation of 

the Oregon chub and which require 

special management. All of the units are 

within the geographic range of the 

species, and they are currently 

occupied. To ensure that their actions 

do not jeopardize the continued 

existence of the Oregon chub, Federal 

agencies 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 resource 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. 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 INRMP within 

the proposed critical habitat 

designation. Therefore, we are not 

exempting lands from this final 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Oregon chub pursuant to section 

4(a)(3)(B)(i) 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 and revise 

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 statute on its face, as well as the 

legislative history, are 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, we 

may exclude an area from designated 

critical habitat based on economic 

impacts, impacts on national security, 

or any other relevant impacts. 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 make this determination, 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 11029 

we can exclude the area only if such 

exclusion would not result in the 

extinction of the species. 

Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts 

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we 

consider the economic impacts of 

specifying any particular area as critical 

habitat. In order to consider economic 

impacts, we prepared a draft economic 

analysis (DEA), which we made 

available for public review on 

September 22, 2009 (74 FR 48211), 

based on the March 10, 2009, proposed 

rule (74 FR 10412). We opened a 

comment period on the DEA until 

October 22, 2009; however, we received 

no comments. Following the close of the 

comment period, a final analysis of the 

potential economic effects of the 

designation was developed, taking into 

consideration any new information. 

The intent of the final economic 

analysis (FEA) is to quantify the 

economic impacts of all potential 

conservation efforts for the Oregon 

chub. Some of these costs will likely be 

incurred regardless of whether we 

designate critical habitat (baseline). The 

economic impact of the final critical 

habitat designation is analyzed by 

comparing scenarios both ‘‘with critical 

habitat’’ and ‘‘without critical habitat.’’ 

The ‘‘without critical habitat’’ scenario 

represents the baseline for the analysis, 

considering protections already in place 

for the species (e.g., under the Federal 

listing and other Federal, State, and 

local regulations). The baseline, 

therefore, represents the costs incurred 

regardless of whether critical habitat is 

designated. The ‘‘with critical habitat’’ 

scenario describes the incremental 

impacts associated specifically with the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

species. The incremental conservation 

efforts and associated impacts are those 

not expected to occur absent the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

species. In other words, the incremental 

costs are those attributable solely to the 

designation of critical habitat above and 

beyond the baseline costs; these are the 

costs we consider in the final 

designation of critical habitat. The 

analysis looks retrospectively at 

baseline impacts incurred since the 

species was listed, and forecasts both 

baseline and incremental impacts likely 

to occur with the designation of critical 

habitat. 

The FEA also addresses how potential 

economic impacts are likely to be 

distributed, including an assessment of 

any local or regional impacts of habitat 

conservation and the potential effects of 

conservation activities on government 

agencies, private businesses, and 

individuals. The FEA measures lost 

economic efficiency associated with 

residential and commercial 

development and public projects and 

activities, such as economic impacts on 

water management and transportation 

projects, Federal lands, small entities, 

and the energy industry. Decisionmakers can use this information to 

assess whether the effects of the 

designation might unduly burden a 

particular group or economic sector. 

Finally, the FEA looks retrospectively at 

costs that have been incurred since 

1993, when the Oregon chub was listed 

under the Act (58 FR 53800), and 

considers those costs that may occur in 

the 20 years following the designation of 

critical habitat, which was determined 

to be the appropriate period for analysis 

because limited planning information 

was available for most activities to 

forecast activity levels for projects 

beyond a 20–year timeframe. The FEA 

quantifies economic impacts of Oregon 

chub conservation efforts associated 

with the following categories of activity: 

water management, activities that 

impact water quality, dredging activities 

and other impacts (e.g., bridge 

replacement, management plans, and 

natural gas pipelines). 

Total baseline impacts are estimated 

to be $3.33 million to $13.2 million, and 

incremental impacts are estimated to be 

$108,000 between 2010 and 2029, 

assuming a 7 percent discount rate. The 

majority of estimated baseline costs 

arise from anticipated mitigation for 

future transportation projects, impacts 

to recreational activities and 

hydropower generation resulting from 

changes in flows, and ongoing habitat 

management efforts, which account for 

over 95 percent of the high-end costs 

estimated in the analysis. Incremental 

impacts are forecast to be entirely 

administrative costs of section 7 

consultations. 

Our economic analysis did not 

identify any disproportionate costs that 

are likely to result from the designation. 

Consequently, the Secretary has 

determined not to exert his discretion to 

exclude any areas from this designation 

of critical habitat for the Oregon chub 

based on economic impacts. A copy of 

the FEA with supporting documents 

may be obtained by contacting the 

Oregon Fish and Wildlife Field Office 

(see ADDRESSES) or for downloading 

from the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Exclusions Based on National Security 

Impacts 

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we 

consider whether there are lands owned 

or managed by the Department of 

Defense (DOD) where the designation of 

critical habitat might present an impact 

to national security. In preparing this 

final rule, we have determined that the 

lands within the designation of critical 

habitat for the Oregon chub are not 

owned or managed by the DOD, and, 

therefore, we anticipate no impact to 

national security. The Secretary has 

determined not to exert his discretion to 

exclude any areas from this final 

designation based on impacts on 

national security. 

Exclusions Based on Other Relevant 

Impacts 

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we 

consider other relevant impacts, in 

addition to economic impacts and 

impacts on national security. We 

consider a number of factors, including 

whether landowners have developed 

any habitat conservation plans (HCPs) 

or other resource management plans for 

the areas proposed for designation, or 

whether there are conservation 

partnerships that would be encouraged 

by designation of, or exclusion from, 

critical habitat. In addition, we look at 

any Tribal issues, and consider the 

government-to-government relationship 

of the United States with Tribal entities. 

We also consider any social impacts that 

might occur because of the designation. 

In preparing this final rule, we have 

determined that there are currently no 

HCPs for the Oregon chub. In 2001 and 

2007, two Safe Harbor Agreements 

(SHAs) for the Oregon chub were 

finalized in Lane County, Oregon, to 

establish new populations of Oregon 

chub in artificial ponds as refugia for 

natural populations. These SHAs will 

contribute to the conservation of the 

species by reducing the risk of the 

complete loss of donor populations and 

any of their unique genetic material. We 

are unaware of any relevant impacts that 

would result from designating critical 

habitat in the areas subject to the SHAs 

and are including them in the final 

designation. The final designation does 

not include any Tribal lands or trust 

resources. Accordingly, the Secretary 

has determined not to exercise his 

discretion to exclude any areas under 

section 4(B)(2) of the Act based on other 

relevant impacts. 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review— 

Executive Order 12866 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has determined that this rule is 

not significant and has not reviewed 

this rule under Executive Order 12866 

(E.O. 12866). OMB bases its 

determination upon the following four 

criteria: 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
11030 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

(RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended 

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an 

agency must 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 

(small businesses, small organizations, 

and small government jurisdictions). 

However, no regulatory flexibility 

analysis is required if the head of an 

agency certifies the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The SBREFA amended the RFA to 

require Federal agencies to provide a 

certification statement of the factual 

basis for certifying that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

In this final rule, we are certifying that 

the critical habitat designation for the 

Oregon chub will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The following 

discussion explains our rationale. 

According to the Small Business 

Administration, small entities include 

small organizations, such as 

independent nonprofit organizations; 

small governmental jurisdictions, 

including school boards and city and 

town governments that serve fewer than 

50,000 residents; as well as small 

businesses. Small businesses include 

manufacturing and mining concerns 

with fewer than 500 employees, 

wholesale trade entities with fewer than 

100 employees, retail and service 

businesses with less than $5 million in 

annual sales, general and heavy 

construction businesses with less than 

$27.5 million in annual business, 

special trade contractors doing less than 

$11.5 million in annual business, and 

agricultural businesses with annual 

sales less than $750,000. To determine 

if potential economic impacts to these 

small entities are significant, we 

consider the types of activities that 

might trigger regulatory impacts under 

this rule, as well as the types of project 

modifications that may result. In 

general, the term significant economic 

impact is meant to apply to a typical 

small business firm’s business 

operations. 

To determine if the rule could 

significantly affect a substantial number 

of small entities, we consider the 

number of small entities affected within 

particular types of economic activities 

(e.g., water management, water quality, 

dredging, and other activities). We 

apply the substantial number test 

individually to each industry to 

determine if certification is appropriate. 

However, the SBREFA does not 

explicitly define substantial number or 

significant economic impact. 

Consequently, to assess whether a 

substantial number of small entities is 

affected by this designation, this 

analysis considers the relative number 

of small entities likely to be impacted in 

an area. In some circumstances, 

especially with critical habitat 

designations of limited extent, we may 

aggregate across all industries and 

consider whether the total number of 

small entities affected is substantial. In 

estimating the number of small entities 

potentially affected, we also consider 

whether their activities have any 

Federal involvement. 

Designation of critical habitat only 

affects activities authorized, funded, or 

carried out by Federal agencies. Some 

kinds of activities are unlikely to have 

any Federal involvement and so will not 

be affected by critical habitat 

designation. In areas where the species 

is present, Federal agencies already are 

required to consult with us under 

section 7 of the Act on activities they 

authorize, fund, or carry out that may 

affect the Oregon chub. Federal agencies 

also must consult with us if their 

activities may affect critical habitat. 

Designation of critical habitat, therefore, 

could result in an additional economic 

impact on small entities due to the 

requirement to reinitiate consultation 

for ongoing Federal activities (see 

Application of the Adverse Modification 

Standard section). 

In our final economic analysis of the 

critical habitat designation, we 

evaluated the potential economic effects 

on small business entities resulting from 

implementation of conservation actions 

related to the proposed designation of 

critical habitat for the Oregon chub. The 

analysis is based on the estimated 

impacts associated with the rulemaking 

as described in sections 3 through 7 of 

the analysis, and evaluated the potential 

for economic impacts related to activity 

categories including water management, 

agriculture, forestry, transportation, and 

habitat management. 

As discussed in Appendix A of the 

economic analysis, of the activities 

addressed in the analysis, only forestry 

activities are expected to experience 

incremental, administrative 

consultation costs that may be borne by 

small businesses. These costs may arise 

when the U.S. Forest Service consults 

on Federal timber sales, with small 

logging and timber tract companies as 

third parties. In Lane and Benton 

Counties, there are 178 logging 

operations and 98 timber tract 

operations that are considered small, 

representing between 98 and 100 

percent of all businesses in the affected 

industry sector within these two 

counties. Conservatively, assuming a 

single business is associated with all of 

the forecasted impacts to forestry 

activities, the present value, 20–year 

impact of $1,440 to a single small 

business is approximately 0.02 percent 

of annual sales. The annualized impacts 

to timber tract operations is estimated at 

$136, or approximately 0.002 percent of 

annual sales. Therefore, while assuming 

that each small business has annual 

sales just under its SBA industry small 

business threshold ($7.0 million in 

annual revenues for timber tract 

operations; 500 employees for logging 

operations) may underestimate impacts 

as a percentage of annual sales, forecast 

impacts still are likely to be relatively 

small in comparison to annual revenues. 

Please refer to our economic analysis of 

the critical habitat designation for a 

more detailed discussion of potential 

economic impacts. 

In summary, we have considered 

whether the designation would result in 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Based on the above reasoning and 

currently available information, we 

concluded that this rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small business 

entities. Therefore, we are certifying that 

the designation of critical habitat for the 

Oregon chub will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities, and a 

regulatory flexibility analysis is not 

required. 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use— 

Executive Order 13211 

Under Executive Order 13211 (E.O. 

13211, Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use), Federal agencies 

must prepare Statements of Energy 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 11031 

Effects when undertaking certain 

actions. OMB has provided guidance for 

implementing this Executive Order that 

outlines nine outcomes that may 

constitute a significant adverse effect 

when compared to not taking the 

regulatory action under consideration. 

The economic analysis finds that none 

of these criteria are relevant to this 

analysis. Thus, based on information in 

the economic analysis, energy-related 

impacts associated with the Oregon 

chub conservation activities within 

critical habitat are not expected. As 

such, the designation of critical habitat 

is not expected to significantly affect 

energy supplies, distribution, or use. 

Therefore, this action is not a significant 

energy action, and no Statement of 

Energy Effects is required. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et 

seq.), we make the following findings: 

1. 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, or 

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 [T]ribal 

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; Aid to Families with 

Dependent Children 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 nonFederal 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 

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 onto State 

governments. 

2. We do not believe that this rule will 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, because it will not 

produce a Federal mandate of $100 

million or greater in any year; that is, it 

is not a significant regulatory action 

under the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act. The designation of critical habitat 

imposes no obligations on State or local 

governments. By definition, Federal 

agencies are not considered small 

entities, although the activities they 

fund or permit may be proposed or 

carried out by small entities. As such, a 

Small Government Agency Plan is not 

required. 

Takings—Executive Order 12630 

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. Critical habitat designation 

does not affect landowner actions that 

do not require Federal funding or 

permits, nor does it preclude 

development of habitat conservation 

programs or issuance of incidental take 

permits to permit actions that do require 

Federal funding or permits to go 

forward. The takings implications 

assessment concludes that this 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Oregon chub does not pose significant 

takings implications for lands within or 

affected by the designation. 

Federalism—Executive Order 13132 

In accordance with E.O. 13132 

(Federalism), this rule does not have 

significant Federalism effects. A 

Federalism assessment is not required. 

In keeping with Department of the 

Interior and Department of Commerce 

policy, we requested information from, 

and coordinated development of this 

critical habitat designation with, 

appropriate State resource agencies in 

Oregon. We received comments from 

the State of Oregon and the Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, which 

have been addressed in the Summary of 

Comments and Recommendations 

section of the rule. The designation of 

critical habitat in areas currently 

occupied by the Oregon chub may 

impose nominal additional regulatory 

restrictions to those currently in place 

and, therefore, may have 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 physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species are more clearly defined, 

and the PCEs of the habitat necessary to 

the conservation of the species are 

specifically identified. This information 

does not alter where and what federally 

sponsored activities may occur. 

However, it may assist local 

governments in long-range planning 

(rather than having them wait for caseby-case section 7 consultations to 

occur). 

Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order 

12988 

In accordance with E.O. 12988 (Civil 

Justice Reform), the regulation meets the 

applicable standards set forth in 

sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. 

We are designating critical habitat in 

accordance with the provisions of the 

Act. This final rule uses standard 

property descriptions and identifies the 

physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

subspecies 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 of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.). This rule will not impose 

recordkeeping or reporting requirements 

on State or local governments, 

individuals, businesses, or 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
11032 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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 (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

It is our position that, outside the 

jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to 

prepare environmental analyses as 

defined by NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.) in connection with designating 

critical habitat under the Act. We 

published a notice outlining our reasons 

for this determination in the Federal 

Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 

49244). This position was upheld by the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 

F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 

516 U.S. 1042 (1996)). 

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), E.O. 13175, 

and the Department of the 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. In 

accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 

of June 5, 1997, American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act, we readily acknowledge 

our responsibilities to work directly 

with Tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

Tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to Tribes. 

We 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 

unoccupied Tribal lands that are 

essential for the conservation of the 

Oregon chub. Therefore, we are not 

designating critical habitat for the 

Oregon chub on Tribal lands. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

is available upon request from the 

Oregon Fish and Wildlife Field Office 

(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Author(s) 

The primary authors of this package 

are the staff members of the Oregon Fish 

and Wildlife Field Office. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Regulation Promulgation 

■ Accordingly, we amend part 17, 

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, as 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; Pub. L. 99– 

625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by revising the 

entry for ‘‘Chub, Oregon’’ under ‘‘Fishes’’ 

in the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife to read as follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Species 

Historic range 

Vertebrate 

population 

where 

endangered or 

threatened 

Status When listed Critical habitat Special rules 

Common name Scientific name 

* * * * * * * 

FISHES 

* * * * * * * 

Chub, Oregon Oregonichthys 

crameri 

U.S.A. (OR) Entire E 520 §17.95(e) NA 

* * * * * * * 

■ 3. In § 17.95, amend paragraph (e) by 

adding an entry for ‘‘Oregon Chub 

(Oregonichthys crameri)’’ in the same 

order that the species appears in the 

table at § 17.11(h), to read as follows: 

§ 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 aquatic surface area 

at depths between approximately 0.5– 

2.0 m (1.6–6.6 ft). 

(ii) Aquatic vegetation covering a 

minimum of 250 square meters (.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 are 

important for cover throughout the year. 

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 F), withC 

(59 and 78 subsurface water 

temperatures between 15 and 25 natural 

diurnal and seasonal variation. 

(iv) No or negligible levels of 

nonnative aquatic predatory or 

competitive species. Negligible is 

defined for the purpose of this rule as 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 11033 

a minimal level of nonnative species 

that will still allow the Oregon chub to 

continue to survive and recover. 

(3) Critical habitat does not include 

manmade structures (including, but not 

limited to, docks, seawalls, pipelines, 

runways, or other structures or paved 

areas) and the land or waterway on 

which they are located that exist within 

the legal 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. From USGS 

1:24,000 scale quadrangle Albany. 

(5) Note: Index map for critical habitat 

for the Oregon chub (Oregonichthys 

crameri) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
11034 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULESER10MR10.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 11035 

(6) Unit 1A: Santiam I–5 Side 

Channels, Linn County, Oregon. 

(i) This unit 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. 

(ii) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates 

(E,N): 495981, 4953649; 495990, 

4953647; 496000, 4953645; 496010, 

4953645; 496012, 4953644; 496012, 

4953642; 496010, 4953640; 496001, 

4953639; 495992, 4953638; 495980, 

4953640; 495975, 4953641; 495966, 

4953644; 495959, 4953647; 495954, 

4953648; 495941, 4953649; 495933, 

4953648; 495926, 4953649; 495907, 

4953654; 495897, 4953656; 495888, 

4953658; 495879, 4953660; 495862, 

4953661; 495864, 4953676; 495876, 

4953675; 495889, 4953673; 495900, 

4953671; 495912, 4953667; 495922, 

4953664; 495930, 4953660; 495941, 

4953660; 495945, 4953659; 495955, 

4953658; 495962, 4953656; 495973, 

4953653; 495981, 4953649; 

Land bounded by the following UTM 

Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 

496146, 4953619; 496158, 4953612; 

496173, 4953605; 496182, 4953598; 

496191, 4953592; 496202, 4953587; 

496212, 4953583; 496220, 4953581; 

496225, 4953579; 496229, 4953582; 

496232, 4953576; 496229, 4953573; 

496231, 4953570; 496238, 4953564; 

496242, 4953559; 496247, 4953555; 

496249, 4953550; 496246, 4953547; 

496243, 4953547; 496237, 4953552; 

496230, 4953556; 496225, 4953562; 

496221, 4953567; 496216, 4953569; 

496214, 4953571; 496209, 4953568; 

496202, 4953570; 496196, 4953573; 

496186, 4953578; 496182, 4953575; 

496190, 4953567; 496199, 4953563; 

496206, 4953558; 496205, 4953547; 

496193, 4953540; 496179, 4953540; 

496168, 4953539; 496161, 4953529; 

496147, 4953530; 496139, 4953538; 

496131, 4953549; 496120, 4953561; 

496114, 4953571; 496109, 4953580; 

496108, 4953587; 496106, 4953594; 

496098, 4953604; 496090, 4953611; 

496082, 4953619; 496084, 4953627; 

496077, 4953635; 496068, 4953641; 

496056, 4953649; 496045, 4953656; 

496030, 4953662; 496017, 4953668; 

496002, 4953671; 495979, 4953676; 

495969, 4953678; 495957, 4953681; 

495947, 4953683; 495935, 4953687; 

495925, 4953688; 495917, 4953692; 

495917, 4953699; 495925, 4953705; 

495932, 4953707; 495947, 4953708; 

495960, 4953708; 495978, 4953710; 

495993, 4953707; 496009, 4953700; 

496024, 4953694; 496038, 4953690; 

496051, 4953685; 496061, 4953678; 

496070, 4953672; 496078, 4953665; 

496089, 4953655; 496100, 4953646; 

496117, 4953634; 496126, 4953627; 

496136, 4953624; 496146, 4953619; and 

excluding land bound by 496163, 

4953570; 496160, 4953566; 496153, 

4953567; 496151, 4953564; 496151, 

4953561; 496156, 4953559; 496162, 

4953562; 496167, 4953565; 496172, 

4953564; 496176, 4953564; 496181, 

4953566; 496176, 4953573; 496173, 

4953582; 496167, 4953587; 496161, 

4953586; 496156, 4953588; 496153, 

4953592; 496146, 4953596; 496137, 

4953599; 496131, 4953601; 496123, 

4953606; 496115, 4953611; 496109, 

4953615; 496104, 4953619; 496109, 

4953611; 496110, 4953603; 496117, 

4953598; 496121, 4953592; 496129, 

4953587; 496136, 4953580; 496143, 

4953577; 496150, 4953576; 496163, 

4953570; and excluding land bound by 

496137, 4953566; 496135, 4953569; 

496131, 4953569; 496131, 4953565; 

496134, 4953562; 496136, 4953564; 

496137, 4953566; 

(iii) Map of Unit 1A of critical habitat 

for the Oregon chub (Oregonichthys 

crameri) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
11036 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULESER10MR10.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 11037 

(7) Unit 1B(1): Geren Island North 

Channel, Marion County, Oregon. 

(i) This unit 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. 

(ii) Land bound by the following 

coordinates (EN): 519305, 4960118; 

519312, 4960112; 519322, 4960112; 

519338, 4960110; 519360, 4960109; 

519367, 4960111; 519380, 4960106; 

519387, 4960105; 519405, 4960103; 

519427, 4960100; 519439, 4960098; 

519446, 4960097; 519461, 4960094; 

519468, 4960092; 519490, 4960089; 

519511, 4960081; 519526, 4960079; 

519540, 4960073; 519553, 4960069; 

519560, 4960068; 519564, 4960067; 

519576, 4960062; 519593, 4960056; 

519616, 4960047; 519628, 4960039; 

519633, 4960033; 519634, 4960019; 

519627, 4960014; 519615, 4960018; 

519606, 4960023; 519595, 4960031; 

519590, 4960035; 519581, 4960040; 

519568, 4960045; 519547, 4960053; 

519533, 4960057; 519520, 4960062; 

519497, 4960065; 519474, 4960073; 

519464, 4960074; 519442, 4960077; 

519413, 4960083; 519381, 4960088; 

519366, 4960091; 519355, 4960093; 

519340, 4960091; 519322, 4960089; 

519311, 4960089; 519298, 4960090; 

519290, 4960091; 519281, 4960105; 

519278, 4960114; 519289, 4960131; 

519293, 4960137; 519299, 4960134; 

519301, 4960124; 519305, 4960118; 

(iii) Map of Unit 1B(1) of critical 

habitat for the Oregon chub 

(Oregonichthys crameri) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
11038 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULESER10MR10.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 11039 

(8) Unit 1B(2): Stayton Public Works 

Pond, Marion County, Oregon. 

(i) This unit totals approximately 0.4 

ha (1.0 ac) and is located in and owned 

by the City of Stayton, in Marion 

County, Oregon. 

(ii) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates 

(E,N): 516606, 4960109; 516603, 

4960102; 516607, 4960099; 516611, 

4960101; 516614, 4960101; 516622, 

4960100; 516623, 4960098; 516622, 

4960095; 516614, 4960093; 516608, 

4960091; 516606, 4960088; 516603, 

4960084; 516605, 4960079; 516607, 

4960077; 516610, 4960080; 516614, 

4960084; 516616, 4960085; 516618, 

4960083; 516616, 4960078; 516613, 

4960074; 516610, 4960074; 516608, 

4960073; 516605, 4960072; 516605, 

4960067; 516604, 4960064; 516603, 

4960058; 516600, 4960051; 516593, 

4960046; 516592, 4960043; 516595, 

4960040; 516598, 4960033; 516594, 

4960027; 516590, 4960023; 516583, 

4960023; 516574, 4960020; 516568, 

4960017; 516560, 4960012; 516555, 

4960010; 516549, 4960011; 516546, 

4960011; 516543, 4960013; 516540, 

4960018; 516535, 4960020; 516534, 

4960021; 516533, 4960028; 516535, 

4960038; 516540, 4960043; 516544, 

4960055; 516547, 4960061; 516547, 

4960066; 516547, 4960077; 516550, 

4960087; 516552, 4960092; 516552, 

4960100; 516552, 4960101; 516554, 

4960100; 516555, 4960097; 516554, 

4960092; 516553, 4960082; 516550, 

4960071; 516551, 4960067; 516554, 

4960067; 516559, 4960070; 516563, 

4960072; 516568, 4960070; 516569, 

4960071; 516572, 4960071; 516575, 

4960068; 516578, 4960064; 516583, 

4960064; 516589, 4960066; 516589, 

4960068; 516590, 4960072; 516590, 

4960080; 516588, 4960086; 516587, 

4960086; 516585, 4960088; 516583, 

4960092; 516584, 4960095; 516589, 

4960096; 516594, 4960099; 516598, 

4960102; 516599, 4960104; 516602, 

4960104; 516604, 4960110; 516604, 

4960114; 516607, 4960114; 516606, 

4960109; and excluding land bound by 

516585, 4960037; 516586, 4960036; 

516587, 4960038; 516586, 4960040; 

516585, 4960041; 516583, 4960040; 

516584, 4960039; 516585, 4960037; and 

excluding land bound by 516558, 

4960022; 516561, 4960022; 516562, 

4960023; 516562, 4960025; 516559, 

4960025; 516557, 4960024; 516558, 

4960022; 

(iii) See paragraph (10)(iii) for a map 

showing critical habitat unit 1B(2). 

(9) Unit 1B(3): South Stayton Pond, 

Linn County, Oregon. 

(i) This unit 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). 

(ii) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates 

(E,N): 515540, 4959144; 515536, 

4959144; 515529, 4959146; 515522, 

4959149; 515513, 4959153; 515509, 

4959158; 515507, 4959161; 515511, 

4959166; 515515, 4959169; 515522, 

4959173; 515530, 4959177; 515536, 

4959180; 515540, 4959182; 515545, 

4959180; 515546, 4959173; 515544, 

4959162; 515543, 4959153; 515543, 

4959149; 515542, 4959147; 515540, 

4959144; 

(iii) See paragraph (10)(iii) for a map 

showing critical habitat unit 1B(3). 

(10) Unit 1B(4): Gray Slough, Marion 

County, Oregon. 

(i) This unit totals approximately 2.5 

ha (6.2 ac), is privately owned, and is 

located in Marion County, Oregon. 

(ii) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates 

(E,N): 513857, 4957787; 513859, 

4957785; 513856, 4957783; 513839, 

4957783; 513822, 4957784; 513807, 

4957784; 513791, 4957786; 513775, 

4957786; 513772, 4957784; 513764, 

4957785; 513748, 4957780; 513731, 

4957773; 513711, 4957767; 513689, 

4957761; 513654, 4957755; 513630, 

4957749; 513605, 4957746; 513585, 

4957742; 513558, 4957736; 513532, 

4957730; 513503, 4957727; 513480, 

4957723; 513473, 4957717; 513468, 

4957712; 513460, 4957708; 513455, 

4957707; 513443, 4957708; 513435, 

4957711; 513424, 4957713; 513415, 

4957713; 513406, 4957709; 513397, 

4957703; 513378, 4957700; 513362, 

4957696; 513353, 4957691; 513342, 

4957684; 513333, 4957683; 513324, 

4957680; 513312, 4957678; 513300, 

4957674; 513286, 4957674; 513279, 

4957671; 513270, 4957666; 513264, 

4957660; 513255, 4957658; 513247, 

4957663; 513241, 4957662; 513237, 

4957651; 513229, 4957650; 513214, 

4957648; 513202, 4957645; 513195, 

4957644; 513188, 4957644; 513181, 

4957643; 513172, 4957640; 513161, 

4957637; 513152, 4957634; 513141, 

4957631; 513132, 4957630; 513127, 

4957626; 513119, 4957623; 513111, 

4957629; 513102, 4957630; 513094, 

4957626; 513084, 4957625; 513074, 

4957622; 513066, 4957621; 513062, 

4957613; 513059, 4957610; 513053, 

4957605; 513048, 4957598; 513044, 

4957601; 513043, 4957608; 513039, 

4957613; 513035, 4957613; 513029, 

4957613; 513025, 4957609; 513021, 

4957603; 513016, 4957599; 513011, 

4957591; 513004, 4957580; 512996, 

4957571; 512989, 4957558; 512980, 

4957550; 512976, 4957539; 512972, 

4957529; 512962, 4957517; 512955, 

4957514; 512948, 4957516; 512944, 

4957524; 512948, 4957533; 512954, 

4957540; 512966, 4957547; 512969, 

4957553; 512972, 4957564; 512977, 

4957573; 512980, 4957580; 512983, 

4957587; 512991, 4957598; 513002, 

4957608; 513011, 4957616; 513022, 

4957624; 513036, 4957633; 513045, 

4957636; 513052, 4957639; 513059, 

4957645; 513067, 4957648; 513081, 

4957655; 513097, 4957664; 513108, 

4957669; 513118, 4957673; 513133, 

4957679; 513148, 4957685; 513161, 

4957690; 513178, 4957697; 513184, 

4957699; 513197, 4957703; 513214, 

4957707; 513220, 4957709; 513233, 

4957712; 513247, 4957714; 513259, 

4957717; 513268, 4957719; 513282, 

4957722; 513298, 4957725; 513310, 

4957727; 513319, 4957727; 513332, 

4957730; 513350, 4957734; 513366, 

4957734; 513379, 4957735; 513389, 

4957735; 513400, 4957735; 513418, 

4957736; 513436, 4957737; 513449, 

4957738; 513461, 4957739; 513468, 

4957739; 513497, 4957743; 513519, 

4957748; 513531, 4957752; 513539, 

4957753; 513541, 4957752; 513540, 

4957750; 513533, 4957749; 513524, 

4957746; 513508, 4957742; 513503, 

4957741; 513501, 4957738; 513505, 

4957738; 513513, 4957740; 513522, 

4957742; 513531, 4957744; 513544, 

4957748; 513556, 4957750; 513569, 

4957751; 513585, 4957754; 513599, 

4957757; 513611, 4957757; 513627, 

4957759; 513639, 4957760; 513668, 

4957768; 513700, 4957773; 513727, 

4957780; 513747, 4957787; 513769, 

4957793; 513788, 4957791; 513801, 

4957791; 513814, 4957789; 513839, 

4957788; 513857, 4957787; 

(iii) Map of Units 1B(2), 1B(3), and 

1B(4) of critical habitat for the Oregon 

chub (Oregonichthys crameri) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
11040 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULESER10MR10.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 11041 

(11) Unit 1C: Foster Pullout Pond, 

Linn County, Oregon. 

(i) This unit 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. 

(ii) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates 

(E,N): 529130, 4918726; 529115, 

4918723; 529101, 4918725; 529089, 

4918735; 529094, 4918745; 529106, 

4918755; 529122, 4918771; 529142, 

4918788; 529159, 4918805; 529175, 

4918821; 529175, 4918820; 529179, 

4918819; 529180, 4918805; 529177, 

4918789; 529183, 4918787; 529183, 

4918784; 529177, 4918778; 529172, 

4918767; 529168, 4918759; 529162, 

4918746; 529153, 4918738; 529145, 

4918734; 529130, 4918726; 

(iii) Map of Unit 1C of critical habitat 

for the Oregon chub (Oregonichthys 

crameri) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
11042 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULESER10MR10.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 11043 

(12) Unit 2A(1): Russell Pond, Lane 

County, Oregon. 

(i) This unit totals approximately 0.1 

ha (0.1 ac), is privately owned, and is 

located in the Mohawk River drainage, 

Lane County, Oregon. 

(ii) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates 

(E,N): 514905, 4897668; 514916, 

4897667; 514929, 4897668; 514939, 

4897667; 514952, 4897667; 514956, 

4897667; 514959, 4897666; 514961, 

4897662; 514964, 4897661; 514969, 

4897661; 514975, 4897662; 514976, 

4897659; 514970, 4897657; 514963, 

4897656; 514960, 4897654; 514960, 

4897651; 514955, 4897650; 514945, 

4897650; 514932, 4897650; 514917, 

4897650; 514908, 4897651; 514900, 

4897651; 514898, 4897651; 514897, 

4897653; 514896, 4897656; 514895, 

4897663; 514891, 4897663; 514884, 

4897662; 514878, 4897659; 514877, 

4897660; 514883, 4897664; 514891, 

4897665; 514895, 4897666; 514897, 

4897666; 514905, 4897668; 

(iii) See paragraph (13)(iii) for a map 

showing critical habitat unit 2A(1). 

(13) Unit 2A(2): Shetzline Pond, Lane 

County, Oregon. 

(i) This unit totals approximately 0.1 

ha (0.3 ac), is privately owned, and is 

located in the Mohawk River drainage, 

Lane County, Oregon. 

(ii) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates 

(E,N): 515484, 4897250; 515477, 

4897249; 515469, 4897250; 515464, 

4897252; 515461, 4897254; 515460, 

4897259; 515462, 4897263; 515466, 

4897266; 515476, 4897267; 515485, 

4897266; 515489, 4897265; 515493, 

4897262; 515494, 4897258; 515492, 

4897254; 515489, 4897251; 515484, 

4897250; 

(iii) Map of Units 2A(1) and 2A(2) of 

critical habitat for the Oregon chub 

(Oregonichthys crameri) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
11044 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULESER10MR10.005</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 11045 

(14) Unit 2A(3): Big Island, Lane 

County, Oregon. 

(i) This unit 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. 

(ii) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates 

(E,N): 507093, 4879404; 507095, 

4879401; 507097, 4879400; 507099, 

4879398; 507099, 4879396; 507096, 

4879397; 507091, 4879401; 507089, 

4879403; 507079, 4879395; 507071, 

4879390; 507077, 4879388; 507081, 

4879386; 507085, 4879384; 507091, 

4879381; 507097, 4879378; 507099, 

4879376; 507104, 4879373; 507107, 

4879371; 507112, 4879369; 507116, 

4879368; 507121, 4879365; 507127, 

4879363; 507131, 4879360; 507136, 

4879357; 507131, 4879349; 507125, 

4879353; 507120, 4879356; 507115, 

4879358; 507110, 4879360; 507103, 

4879362; 507098, 4879366; 507092, 

4879370; 507087, 4879373; 507082, 

4879375; 507078, 4879377; 507073, 

4879380; 507069, 4879381; 507064, 

4879383; 507047, 4879368; 507030, 

4879355; 507010, 4879343; 507001, 

4879338; 506986, 4879326; 506974, 

4879317; 506961, 4879310; 506960, 

4879307; 506963, 4879303; 506970, 

4879300; 506974, 4879297; 506971, 

4879293; 506965, 4879296; 506955, 

4879303; 506946, 4879298; 506943, 

4879287; 506945, 4879279; 506949, 

4879278; 506953, 4879279; 506960, 

4879276; 506961, 4879271; 506956, 

4879265; 506944, 4879261; 506929, 

4879258; 506913, 4879255; 506902, 

4879248; 506892, 4879241; 506885, 

4879236; 506891, 4879226; 506906, 

4879239; 506922, 4879240; 506930, 

4879245; 506944, 4879252; 506955, 

4879254; 506966, 4879261; 506973, 

4879275; 506982, 4879280; 506990, 

4879284; 506999, 4879289; 507009, 

4879288; 507026, 4879290; 507042, 

4879291; 507061, 4879296; 507076, 

4879295; 507081, 4879287; 507075, 

4879279; 507053, 4879277; 507035, 

4879269; 507020, 4879267; 507013, 

4879268; 506997, 4879265; 506990, 

4879259; 506998, 4879253; 507007, 

4879251; 507015, 4879247; 507031, 

4879250; 507046, 4879252; 507062, 

4879251; 507070, 4879259; 507078, 

4879257; 507084, 4879251; 507100, 

4879247; 507111, 4879242; 507120, 

4879245; 507133, 4879246; 507145, 

4879245; 507156, 4879241; 507166, 

4879239; 507171, 4879237; 507178, 

4879231; 507184, 4879222; 507190, 

4879215; 507202, 4879194; 507202, 

4879185; 507208, 4879174; 507209, 

4879156; 507212, 4879135; 507213, 

4879127; 507211, 4879118; 507206, 

4879125; 507206, 4879135; 507203, 

4879147; 507202, 4879161; 507199, 

4879175; 507193, 4879180; 507190, 

4879172; 507189, 4879166; 507186, 

4879148; 507181, 4879137; 507171, 

4879126; 507160, 4879117; 507150, 

4879110; 507138, 4879106; 507126, 

4879110; 507125, 4879117; 507133, 

4879122; 507140, 4879122; 507147, 

4879125; 507151, 4879132; 507159, 

4879140; 507166, 4879150; 507172, 

4879157; 507173, 4879166; 507173, 

4879183; 507168, 4879192; 507161, 

4879206; 507157, 4879215; 507152, 

4879226; 507145, 4879238; 507143, 

4879242; 507136, 4879243; 507126, 

4879242; 507117, 4879241; 507111, 

4879239; 507108, 4879240; 507099, 

4879244; 507094, 4879246; 507083, 

4879248; 507081, 4879250; 507077, 

4879251; 507073, 4879250; 507068, 

4879251; 507065, 4879249; 507061, 

4879247; 507049, 4879248; 507038, 

4879247; 507025, 4879244; 507019, 

4879243; 507010, 4879243; 507001, 

4879244; 506992, 4879245; 506982, 

4879245; 506983, 4879241; 506989, 

4879241; 506999, 4879237; 507007, 

4879236; 507014, 4879233; 507021, 

4879232; 507027, 4879230; 507032, 

4879230; 507042, 4879228; 507044, 

4879226; 507042, 4879224; 507033, 

4879226; 507025, 4879227; 507018, 

4879229; 507008, 4879232; 506999, 

4879233; 506989, 4879235; 506973, 

4879236; 506961, 4879233; 506940, 

4879225; 506924, 4879221; 506903, 

4879215; 506894, 4879212; 506883, 

4879212; 506869, 4879216; 506857, 

4879229; 506843, 4879242; 506830, 

4879242; 506810, 4879244; 506792, 

4879240; 506784, 4879227; 506787, 

4879205; 506795, 4879179; 506805, 

4879165; 506816, 4879148; 506817, 

4879134; 506812, 4879116; 506826, 

4879084; 506843, 4879058; 506856, 

4879043; 506846, 4879034; 506829, 

4879053; 506821, 4879069; 506813, 

4879081; 506803, 4879105; 506795, 

4879118; 506795, 4879133; 506797, 

4879145; 506796, 4879157; 506794, 

4879165; 506790, 4879173; 506787, 

4879177; 506787, 4879174; 506789, 

4879170; 506789, 4879166; 506785, 

4879164; 506783, 4879167; 506782, 

4879173; 506781, 4879177; 506780, 

4879188; 506777, 4879197; 506774, 

4879207; 506766, 4879226; 506759, 

4879234; 506750, 4879245; 506740, 

4879250; 506722, 4879253; 506707, 

4879253; 506703, 4879258; 506703, 

4879264; 506704, 4879274; 506701, 

4879282; 506699, 4879292; 506696, 

4879293; 506688, 4879290; 506677, 

4879287; 506662, 4879284; 506651, 

4879278; 506639, 4879273; 506626, 

4879266; 506618, 4879277; 506626, 

4879282; 506637, 4879288; 506649, 

4879296; 506658, 4879300; 506669, 

4879307; 506681, 4879313; 506693, 

4879320; 506707, 4879328; 506720, 

4879335; 506731, 4879339; 506740, 

4879339; 506745, 4879338; 506748, 

4879338; 506751, 4879339; 506754, 

4879341; 506756, 4879338; 506752, 

4879336; 506749, 4879332; 506745, 

4879325; 506736, 4879319; 506728, 

4879315; 506722, 4879312; 506718, 

4879307; 506710, 4879301; 506710, 

4879296; 506719, 4879287; 506730, 

4879279; 506744, 4879278; 506755, 

4879276; 506767, 4879274; 506789, 

4879276; 506804, 4879274; 506816, 

4879274; 506826, 4879273; 506834, 

4879271; 506845, 4879272; 506853, 

4879274; 506859, 4879275; 506864, 

4879279; 506869, 4879285; 506876, 

4879290; 506884, 4879296; 506892, 

4879301; 506900, 4879307; 506910, 

4879315; 506917, 4879320; 506927, 

4879328; 506936, 4879336; 506940, 

4879340; 506946, 4879344; 506953, 

4879347; 506959, 4879348; 506957, 

4879352; 506956, 4879355; 506958, 

4879357; 506961, 4879360; 506966, 

4879360; 506970, 4879356; 506973, 

4879357; 506982, 4879361; 506991, 

4879366; 507004, 4879374; 507012, 

4879378; 507020, 4879381; 507028, 

4879385; 507044, 4879392; 507055, 

4879398; 507066, 4879405; 507075, 

4879413; 507087, 4879421; 507099, 

4879426; 507107, 4879429; 507118, 

4879430; 507122, 4879430; 507121, 

4879412; 507119, 4879411; 507111, 

4879411; 507102, 4879409; 507093, 

4879406; 507093, 4879404; and 

excluding land bound by 506890, 

4879274; 506883, 4879269; 506872, 

4879263; 506861, 4879256; 506859, 

4879253; 506869, 4879254; 506879, 

4879260; 506890, 4879266; 506902, 

4879272; 506907, 4879278; 506907, 

4879278; 506900, 4879277; 506890, 

4879274; 

Land bounded by the following UTM 

Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 

507017, 4879310; 507023, 4879306; 

507028, 4879308; 507030, 4879307; 

507028, 4879305; 507015, 4879299; 

507008, 4879297; 507002, 4879296; 

506994, 4879293; 506981, 4879288; 

506973, 4879286; 506968, 4879288; 

506970, 4879292; 506971, 4879293; 

506974, 4879297; 506974, 4879298; 

506983, 4879301; 506991, 4879305; 

506999, 4879310; 507009, 4879311; 

507017, 4879310; 

(iii) Map of Unit 2A(3) of critical 

habitat for the Oregon chub 

(Oregonichthys crameri) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
11046 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULESER10MR10.006</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 11047 

(15) Unit 2B(1): Ankeny Willow 

Marsh , Marion County, Oregon. 

(i) This unit totals 14.0 ha (34.5 ac), 

and is located in Marion County, 

Oregon, at the Ankeny National Wildlife 

Refuge. 

(ii) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates 

(E,N): 494301, 4959127; 494318, 

4959124; 494328, 4959126; 494338, 

4959131; 494348, 4959134; 494359, 

4959134; 494373, 4959127; 494386, 

4959104; 494396, 4959076; 494413, 

4959050; 494434, 4959017; 494451, 

4958983; 494466, 4958953; 494479, 

4958932; 494498, 4958911; 494512, 

4958896; 494530, 4958884; 494528, 

4958885; 494551, 4958869; 494585, 

4958866; 494603, 4958867; 494618, 

4958861; 494628, 4958854; 494642, 

4958838; 494675, 4958818; 494703, 

4958792; 494711, 4958776; 494719, 

4958752; 494713, 4958732; 494698, 

4958720; 494693, 4958709; 494693, 

4958703; 494698, 4958689; 494705, 

4958673; 494716, 4958660; 494718, 

4958654; 494714, 4958642; 494711, 

4958623; 494710, 4958612; 494711, 

4958605; 494720, 4958591; 494718, 

4958581; 494726, 4958576; 494732, 

4958564; 494720, 4958547; 494708, 

4958530; 494696, 4958519; 494684, 

4958527; 494670, 4958544; 494652, 

4958566; 494634, 4958589; 494619, 

4958606; 494592, 4958636; 494565, 

4958665; 494541, 4958693; 494518, 

4958718; 494498, 4958738; 494465, 

4958772; 494447, 4958788; 494420, 

4958812; 494397, 4958835; 494377, 

4958859; 494360, 4958882; 494347, 

4958900; 494326, 4958927; 494310, 

4958946; 494271, 4958996; 494234, 

4959040; 494212, 4959066; 494168, 

4959117; 494144, 4959145; 494127, 

4959161; 494091, 4959202; 494073, 

4959226; 494064, 4959244; 494056, 

4959257; 494051, 4959284; 494056, 

4959320; 494056, 4959331; 494066, 

4959344; 494080, 4959353; 494094, 

4959362; 494112, 4959373; 494123, 

4959380; 494137, 4959388; 494144, 

4959387; 494153, 4959369; 494169, 

4959341; 494182, 4959326; 494200, 

4959303; 494208, 4959293; 494242, 

4959260; 494255, 4959217; 494262, 

4959174; 494278, 4959150; 494283, 

4959143; 494301, 4959127; 

(iii) Map of Unit 2B(1) of critical 

habitat for the Oregon chub 

(Oregonichthys crameri) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
11048 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULESER10MR10.007</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 11049 

(16) Unit 2B(2): Dunn Wetland, 

Benton County, Oregon. 

(i) This unit totals 6.1 ha (15.2 ac), is 

privately owned, and is located in 

Benton County, Oregon. 

(ii) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates 

(E,N): 470225, 4922333; 470235, 

4922324; 470236, 4922329; 470238, 

4922344; 470241, 4922357; 470250, 

4922355; 470246, 4922340; 470247, 

4922320; 470247, 4922297; 470249, 

4922269; 470238, 4922250; 470261, 

4922225; 470284, 4922196; 470294, 

4922183; 470307, 4922160; 470331, 

4922148; 470348, 4922122; 470353, 

4922112; 470369, 4922092; 470366, 

4922064; 470362, 4922042; 470372, 

4922042; 470382, 4922035; 470385, 

4922023; 470379, 4922013; 470370, 

4922010; 470364, 4922017; 470358, 

4922021; 470350, 4922017; 470349, 

4921978; 470346, 4921960; 470347, 

4921943; 470345, 4921932; 470341, 

4921931; 470335, 4921934; 470297, 

4921958; 470272, 4921977; 470247, 

4921994; 470230, 4922005; 470217, 

4922012; 470202, 4922022; 470188, 

4922033; 470179, 4922048; 470170, 

4922062; 470170, 4922073; 470171, 

4922088; 470171, 4922100; 470164, 

4922104; 470159, 4922102; 470145, 

4922085; 470137, 4922078; 470132, 

4922078; 470129, 4922081; 470125, 

4922088; 470122, 4922098; 470115, 

4922121; 470113, 4922135; 470115, 

4922143; 470110, 4922148; 470095, 

4922149; 470078, 4922157; 470065, 

4922171; 470054, 4922186; 470056, 

4922199; 470063, 4922207; 470082, 

4922221; 470099, 4922232; 470123, 

4922248; 470154, 4922273; 470166, 

4922283; 470190, 4922305; 470205, 

4922329; 470194, 4922349; 470204, 

4922362; 470212, 4922360; 470225, 

4922333; 

(iii) Map of Unit 2B(2) of critical 

habitat for the Oregon chub 

(Oregonichthys crameri) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
11050 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULESER10MR10.008</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 11051 

(17) Unit 2B(3): Finley Display Pond, 

Benton County, Oregon. 

(i) This unit totals 1.0 ha (2.4 ac) and 

is located in Benton County, Oregon, on 

the William L. Finley National Wildlife 

Refuge. 

(ii) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates 

(E,N): 473297, 4917434; 473299, 

4917431; 473303, 4917433; 473308, 

4917433; 473313, 4917430; 473317, 

4917425; 473322, 4917418; 473323, 

4917413; 473320, 4917406; 473316, 

4917390; 473310, 4917375; 473302, 

4917356; 473297, 4917346; 473294, 

4917333; 473287, 4917319; 473278, 

4917310; 473273, 4917315; 473266, 

4917321; 473262, 4917328; 473257, 

4917337; 473252, 4917345; 473248, 

4917354; 473244, 4917364; 473239, 

4917372; 473237, 4917380; 473232, 

4917389; 473228, 4917397; 473226, 

4917404; 473225, 4917412; 473224, 

4917424; 473223, 4917431; 473221, 

4917445; 473222, 4917459; 473226, 

4917469; 473234, 4917475; 473240, 

4917478; 473244, 4917477; 473251, 

4917474; 473260, 4917468; 473265, 

4917467; 473274, 4917462; 473284, 

4917451; 473291, 4917445; 473296, 

4917440; 473296, 4917436; 473297, 

4917434; and excluding land bound by 

473238, 4917400; 473246, 4917395; 

473249, 4917396; 473252, 4917394; 

473255, 4917393; 473258, 4917392; 

473260, 4917394; 473258, 4917397; 

473258, 4917401; 473254, 4917409; 

473252, 4917413; 473245, 4917423; 

473245, 4917425; 473243, 4917428; 

473242, 4917431; 473240, 4917433; 

473238, 4917430; 473236, 4917425; 

473234, 4917419; 473233, 4917413; 

473234, 4917406; 473238, 4917400; 

(iii) See paragraph (19)(iii) for a map 

showing critical habitat unit 2B(3). 

(18) Unit 2B(4): Finley Cheadle Pond, 

Benton County, Oregon. 

(i) This unit totals 0.9 ha (2.3 ac) and 

is located in Benton County, Oregon, on 

the William L. Finley National Wildlife 

Refuge. 

(ii) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates 

(E,N): 475672, 4916089; 475679, 

4916070; 475684, 4916056; 475685, 

4916053; 475690, 4916045; 475694, 

4916035; 475699, 4916025; 475706, 

4916017; 475714, 4916012; 475725, 

4916006; 475730, 4916004; 475735, 

4916003; 475741, 4916001; 475747, 

4916003; 475752, 4916002; 475760, 

4916003; 475765, 4916001; 475766, 

4915998; 475769, 4915995; 475768, 

4915987; 475768, 4915970; 475766, 

4915960; 475763, 4915956; 475762, 

4915951; 475764, 4915947; 475765, 

4915940; 475766, 4915931; 475766, 

4915917; 475761, 4915909; 475760, 

4915904; 475757, 4915902; 475751, 

4915905; 475747, 4915910; 475741, 

4915915; 475732, 4915925; 475721, 

4915937; 475708, 4915950; 475699, 

4915960; 475699, 4915963; 475681, 

4915977; 475681, 4915982; 475674, 

4915989; 475670, 4915996; 475669, 

4916001; 475666, 4916008; 475663, 

4916019; 475661, 4916030; 475660, 

4916035; 475658, 4916041; 475653, 

4916051; 475649, 4916056; 475642, 

4916055; 475638, 4916064; 475632, 

4916075; 475636, 4916078; 475643, 

4916078; 475649, 4916080; 475654, 

4916080; 475658, 4916080; 475657, 

4916087; 475654, 4916099; 475653, 

4916104; 475661, 4916105; 475672, 

4916089; 

(iii) See paragraph (19)(iii) for a map 

showing critical habitat unit 2B(4). 

(19) Unit 2B(5): Finley Gray Creek 

Swamp, Benton County, Oregon. 

(i) This unit 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. 

(ii) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates 

(E,N): 472786, 4916068; 472780, 

4916056; 472772, 4916045; 472756, 

4916036; 472735, 4916028; 472717, 

4916022; 472704, 4916028; 472697, 

4916038; 472685, 4916041; 472670, 

4916051; 472659, 4916056; 472650, 

4916059; 472641, 4916058; 472634, 

4916052; 472627, 4916042; 472618, 

4916033; 472614, 4916026; 472608, 

4916021; 472598, 4916017; 472581, 

4916015; 472564, 4916015; 472538, 

4916017; 472514, 4916018; 472494, 

4916020; 472487, 4916013; 472474, 

4916021; 472450, 4916023; 472428, 

4916026; 472408, 4916029; 472382, 

4916034; 472353, 4916038; 472333, 

4916040; 472314, 4916045; 472306, 

4916054; 472300, 4916065; 472293, 

4916072; 472282, 4916084; 472270, 

4916086; 472259, 4916092; 472246, 

4916094; 472233, 4916092; 472223, 

4916085; 472213, 4916085; 472212, 

4916094; 472218, 4916095; 472225, 

4916100; 472232, 4916102; 472240, 

4916104; 472250, 4916105; 472255, 

4916109; 472261, 4916109; 472266, 

4916105; 472266, 4916098; 472271, 

4916096; 472277, 4916094; 472282, 

4916100; 472289, 4916102; 472300, 

4916102; 472302, 4916104; 472307, 

4916108; 472312, 4916108; 472318, 

4916104; 472323, 4916096; 472329, 

4916086; 472336, 4916074; 472339, 

4916071; 472352, 4916068; 472377, 

4916065; 472388, 4916054; 472397, 

4916050; 472408, 4916046; 472420, 

4916044; 472430, 4916044; 472440, 

4916043; 472447, 4916044; 472460, 

4916046; 472467, 4916048; 472477, 

4916050; 472489, 4916050; 472500, 

4916054; 472508, 4916054; 472515, 

4916051; 472523, 4916052; 472536, 

4916060; 472545, 4916071; 472551, 

4916078; 472559, 4916083; 472566, 

4916096; 472575, 4916098; 472587, 

4916100; 472596, 4916113; 472611, 

4916123; 472631, 4916130; 472652, 

4916133; 472670, 4916134; 472694, 

4916139; 472717, 4916139; 472738, 

4916138; 472759, 4916136; 472763, 

4916133; 472770, 4916126; 472773, 

4916124; 472772, 4916112; 472771, 

4916099; 472772, 4916077; 472780, 

4916073; 472786, 4916068; 

(iii) Map of Units 2B(3), 2B(4), and 

2B(5) of critical habitat for the Oregon 

chub (Oregonichthys crameri) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
11052 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULESER10MR10.009</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 11053 

(20) Unit 3A: Fall Creek Spillway 

Ponds, Lane County, Oregon. 

(i) This unit totals 1.5 ha (3.8 ac), is 

owned by the USACE, and is located in 

the overflow channel below Fall Creek 

Dam in Lane County, Oregon. 

(ii) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates 

(E,N): 519284, 4865517; 519298, 

4865515; 519305, 4865515; 519311, 

4865508; 519313, 4865502; 519312, 

4865488; 519309, 4865483; 519302, 

4865482; 519288, 4865486; 519270, 

4865487; 519253, 4865487; 519243, 

4865488; 519236, 4865490; 519225, 

4865492; 519211, 4865494; 519193, 

4865495; 519166, 4865501; 519142, 

4865506; 519112, 4865514; 519084, 

4865520; 519069, 4865524; 519057, 

4865528; 519032, 4865534; 519009, 

4865541; 518998, 4865545; 518977, 

4865553; 518959, 4865557; 518950, 

4865560; 518928, 4865565; 518911, 

4865570; 518893, 4865575; 518875, 

4865582; 518858, 4865588; 518840, 

4865594; 518833, 4865601; 518832, 

4865607; 518834, 4865612; 518841, 

4865617; 518851, 4865619; 518874, 

4865614; 518889, 4865613; 518920, 

4865605; 518956, 4865589; 518985, 

4865579; 519034, 4865569; 519074, 

4865556; 519092, 4865547; 519129, 

4865540; 519151, 4865538; 519170, 

4865530; 519195, 4865526; 519231, 

4865523; 519243, 4865519; 519284, 

4865517; 

(iii) Map of Unit 3A of critical habitat 

for the Oregon chub (Oregonichthys 

crameri) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
11054 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULESER10MR10.010</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 11055 

(21) Unit 3B: Elijah Bristow State Park 

Berry Slough, Lane County, Oregon. 

(i) This unit 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 

is located in Elijah Bristow State Park in 

Lane County, Oregon. 

(ii) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates 

(E,N): 513039, 4865406; 513039, 

4865403; 513044, 4865400; 513049, 

4865395; 513057, 4865390; 513064, 

4865385; 513074, 4865379; 513081, 

4865378; 513089, 4865378; 513099, 

4865380; 513104, 4865383; 513105, 

4865388; 513107, 4865393; 513109, 

4865396; 513113, 4865398; 513117, 

4865398; 513121, 4865396; 513123, 

4865391; 513122, 4865387; 513117, 

4865377; 513106, 4865366; 513088, 

4865355; 513080, 4865345; 513075, 

4865334; 513078, 4865315; 513080, 

4865307; 513088, 4865290; 513090, 

4865267; 513098, 4865252; 513110, 

4865242; 513123, 4865230; 513132, 

4865222; 513135, 4865219; 513146, 

4865215; 513155, 4865213; 513155, 

4865218; 513154, 4865224; 513155, 

4865226; 513158, 4865225; 513160, 

4865222; 513160, 4865215; 513159, 

4865210; 513170, 4865206; 513190, 

4865204; 513229, 4865204; 513260, 

4865194; 513281, 4865200; 513297, 

4865201; 513312, 4865204; 513329, 

4865207; 513351, 4865210; 513363, 

4865214; 513371, 4865211; 513370, 

4865207; 513365, 4865205; 513357, 

4865203; 513349, 4865201; 513337, 

4865200; 513325, 4865199; 513312, 

4865196; 513298, 4865194; 513282, 

4865188; 513261, 4865186; 513236, 

4865185; 513218, 4865181; 513193, 

4865183; 513181, 4865190; 513163, 

4865196; 513137, 4865203; 513120, 

4865211; 513113, 4865220; 513107, 

4865230; 513100, 4865225; 513100, 

4865221; 513102, 4865215; 513109, 

4865205; 513118, 4865197; 513137, 

4865183; 513160, 4865165; 513171, 

4865159; 513193, 4865152; 513205, 

4865141; 513206, 4865125; 513210, 

4865118; 513209, 4865113; 513208, 

4865095; 513206, 4865089; 513201, 

4865089; 513198, 4865102; 513196, 

4865113; 513189, 4865123; 513182, 

4865135; 513173, 4865143; 513157, 

4865151; 513143, 4865154; 513129, 

4865162; 513123, 4865168; 513106, 

4865182; 513095, 4865192; 513088, 

4865204; 513084, 4865213; 513081, 

4865223; 513073, 4865246; 513065, 

4865266; 513062, 4865273; 513055, 

4865273; 513057, 4865265; 513057, 

4865258; 513052, 4865241; 513054, 

4865232; 513057, 4865225; 513062, 

4865215; 513075, 4865198; 513083, 

4865187; 513090, 4865177; 513091, 

4865171; 513083, 4865175; 513079, 

4865180; 513072, 4865189; 513066, 

4865199; 513059, 4865209; 513051, 

4865220; 513044, 4865231; 513037, 

4865223; 513030, 4865209; 513024, 

4865198; 513016, 4865188; 513007, 

4865176; 513001, 4865169; 512994, 

4865152; 512993, 4865124; 512993, 

4865117; 512996, 4865111; 512998, 

4865104; 512998, 4865078; 513003, 

4865061; 513008, 4865048; 513001, 

4865046; 512997, 4865056; 512989, 

4865066; 512983, 4865081; 512979, 

4865105; 512979, 4865129; 512982, 

4865153; 512986, 4865165; 512995, 

4865184; 513008, 4865202; 513023, 

4865226; 513031, 4865236; 513034, 

4865248; 513035, 4865255; 513037, 

4865271; 513039, 4865286; 513042, 

4865297; 513045, 4865307; 513049, 

4865314; 513051, 4865319; 513049, 

4865330; 513040, 4865336; 513029, 

4865339; 513022, 4865342; 513015, 

4865354; 513009, 4865367; 513000, 

4865383; 513001, 4865389; 513010, 

4865399; 513023, 4865406; 513030, 

4865406; 513035, 4865405; 513035, 

4865406; 513036, 4865408; 513037, 

4865409; 513039, 4865409; 513039, 

4865408; 513039, 4865406; and 

excluding land bound by 513049, 

4865347; 513054, 4865346; 513058, 

4865348; 513058, 4865353; 513058, 

4865356; 513056, 4865362; 513051, 

4865366; 513043, 4865376; 513035, 

4865387; 513029, 4865391; 513022, 

4865391; 513019, 4865386; 513022, 

4865380; 513024, 4865375; 513030, 

4865369; 513035, 4865364; 513040, 

4865358; 513044, 4865349; 513049, 

4865347; 

Land bounded by the following UTM 

Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 

512811, 4865560; 512814, 4865555; 

512827, 4865553; 512827, 4865554; 

512837, 4865553; 512857, 4865551; 

512875, 4865548; 512890, 4865545; 

512908, 4865541; 512923, 4865533; 

512932, 4865529; 512945, 4865526; 

512952, 4865527; 512958, 4865527; 

512961, 4865529; 512963, 4865532; 

512966, 4865534; 512970, 4865533; 

512970, 4865530; 512968, 4865527; 

512960, 4865523; 512947, 4865522; 

512938, 4865523; 512926, 4865525; 

512929, 4865522; 512938, 4865520; 

512949, 4865517; 512963, 4865512; 

512976, 4865510; 512989, 4865513; 

513003, 4865515; 513019, 4865518; 

513034, 4865520; 513048, 4865524; 

513060, 4865526; 513079, 4865532; 

513089, 4865531; 513110, 4865536; 

513124, 4865542; 513125, 4865536; 

513119, 4865534; 513101, 4865528; 

513087, 4865523; 513073, 4865520; 

513057, 4865517; 513032, 4865515; 

513009, 4865511; 512993, 4865508; 

512982, 4865504; 512966, 4865503; 

512956, 4865506; 512946, 4865510; 

512940, 4865513; 512936, 4865512; 

512945, 4865505; 512958, 4865496; 

512977, 4865477; 512986, 4865467; 

513007, 4865442; 513015, 4865429; 

513016, 4865423; 513006, 4865412; 

512998, 4865404; 512995, 4865407; 

512997, 4865416; 512999, 4865422; 

512984, 4865439; 512976, 4865453; 

512958, 4865467; 512940, 4865487; 

512923, 4865500; 512905, 4865513; 

512889, 4865520; 512871, 4865522; 

512851, 4865523; 512835, 4865523; 

512817, 4865524; 512801, 4865527; 

512774, 4865532; 512756, 4865536; 

512741, 4865537; 512736, 4865537; 

512730, 4865534; 512726, 4865534; 

512725, 4865533; 512726, 4865528; 

512723, 4865528; 512723, 4865532; 

512722, 4865533; 512719, 4865534; 

512718, 4865539; 512719, 4865543; 

512717, 4865547; 512706, 4865552; 

512697, 4865559; 512702, 4865563; 

512706, 4865566; 512710, 4865565; 

512715, 4865562; 512723, 4865559; 

512730, 4865557; 512735, 4865555; 

512737, 4865557; 512737, 4865559; 

512733, 4865560; 512731, 4865565; 

512735, 4865570; 512750, 4865573; 

512764, 4865573; 512790, 4865567; 

512798, 4865565; 512811, 4865560; and 

excluding land bound by 512752, 

4865557; 512753, 4865553; 512772, 

4865551; 512786, 4865548; 512793, 

4865548; 512792, 4865553; 512782, 

4865556; 512769, 4865557; 512762, 

4865558; 512756, 4865559; 512752, 

4865557; 

Land bounded by the following UTM 

Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 

512517, 4866094; 512512, 4866079; 

512511, 4866074; 512512, 4866071; 

512513, 4866068; 512512, 4866067; 

512510, 4866069; 512509, 4866072; 

512506, 4866070; 512498, 4866067; 

512489, 4866066; 512488, 4866055; 

512495, 4866045; 512506, 4866032; 

512515, 4866022; 512524, 4866009; 

512534, 4865998; 512545, 4865989; 

512553, 4865977; 512559, 4865964; 

512562, 4865956; 512567, 4865938; 

512567, 4865930; 512568, 4865921; 

512572, 4865911; 512578, 4865902; 

512580, 4865891; 512580, 4865878; 

512580, 4865864; 512582, 4865850; 

512583, 4865827; 512584, 4865806; 

512593, 4865792; 512599, 4865783; 

512602, 4865775; 512607, 4865764; 

512610, 4865755; 512612, 4865748; 

512623, 4865738; 512629, 4865727; 

512635, 4865720; 512642, 4865712; 

512645, 4865707; 512642, 4865701; 

512635, 4865699; 512632, 4865696; 

512633, 4865695; 512636, 4865696; 

512641, 4865696; 512644, 4865694; 

512651, 4865696; 512657, 4865703; 

512667, 4865715; 512676, 4865727; 

512681, 4865731; 512686, 4865732; 

512683, 4865725; 512673, 4865713; 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
11056 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

512661, 4865698; 512655, 4865689; 

512641, 4865681; 512630, 4865677; 

512622, 4865670; 512621, 4865666; 

512623, 4865662; 512628, 4865661; 

512635, 4865660; 512644, 4865658; 

512647, 4865655; 512646, 4865652; 

512638, 4865653; 512626, 4865655; 

512621, 4865653; 512623, 4865645; 

512629, 4865639; 512635, 4865630; 

512642, 4865625; 512651, 4865619; 

512659, 4865610; 512667, 4865602; 

512674, 4865596; 512683, 4865590; 

512692, 4865582; 512700, 4865574; 

512701, 4865572; 512698, 4865570; 

512693, 4865565; 512689, 4865568; 

512678, 4865576; 512662, 4865586; 

512653, 4865595; 512642, 4865606; 

512636, 4865610; 512626, 4865616; 

512618, 4865623; 512609, 4865635; 

512600, 4865647; 512584, 4865649; 

512571, 4865658; 512570, 4865673; 

512580, 4865682; 512579, 4865690; 

512572, 4865706; 512555, 4865727; 

512543, 4865737; 512526, 4865749; 

512512, 4865758; 512501, 4865768; 

512500, 4865773; 512504, 4865772; 

512515, 4865764; 512525, 4865756; 

512539, 4865747; 512549, 4865739; 

512550, 4865739; 512563, 4865733; 

512579, 4865724; 512589, 4865721; 

512594, 4865726; 512592, 4865735; 

512589, 4865741; 512586, 4865748; 

512579, 4865754; 512572, 4865760; 

512565, 4865770; 512557, 4865784; 

512553, 4865793; 512549, 4865816; 

512550, 4865834; 512549, 4865851; 

512550, 4865873; 512552, 4865895; 

512554, 4865899; 512555, 4865907; 

512555, 4865913; 512550, 4865924; 

512541, 4865936; 512533, 4865951; 

512527, 4865963; 512522, 4865972; 

512517, 4865981; 512509, 4865989; 

512501, 4866000; 512496, 4866005; 

512490, 4866017; 512484, 4866027; 

512475, 4866039; 512468, 4866052; 

512465, 4866067; 512420, 4866107; 

512388, 4866124; 512348, 4866132; 

512319, 4866134; 512319, 4866146; 

512345, 4866144; 512388, 4866135; 

512419, 4866125; 512445, 4866104; 

512465, 4866085; 512479, 4866085; 

512496, 4866089; 512504, 4866099; 

512513, 4866123; 512523, 4866135; 

512535, 4866144; 512541, 4866154; 

512541, 4866156; 512554, 4866153; 

512551, 4866147; 512544, 4866138; 

512536, 4866131; 512531, 4866126; 

512525, 4866119; 512523, 4866115; 

512518, 4866102; 512517, 4866094; 

(iii) See paragraph (23)(iii) for a map 

showing critical habitat unit 3B. 

(22) Unit 3C; Elijah Bristow State Park 

Northeast Slough, Lane County Oregon. 

(i) This unit totals 2.2 ha (5.4 ac), is 

owned by the OPRD, and is located in 

Elijah Bristow State Park in Lane 

County, Oregon. 

(ii) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates 

(E,N): 514970, 4864567; 514987, 

4864557; 514999, 4864551; 515023, 

4864537; 515036, 4864528; 515054, 

4864524; 515069, 4864515; 515092, 

4864496; 515116, 4864475; 515137, 

4864447; 515154, 4864412; 515168, 

4864385; 515179, 4864364; 515191, 

4864344; 515202, 4864316; 515216, 

4864293; 515229, 4864277; 515239, 

4864261; 515245, 4864248; 515244, 

4864243; 515235, 4864243; 515219, 

4864260; 515202, 4864285; 515185, 

4864311; 515175, 4864338; 515160, 

4864364; 515147, 4864389; 515138, 

4864411; 515124, 4864438; 515108, 

4864461; 515095, 4864474; 515081, 

4864487; 515063, 4864492; 515064, 

4864482; 515066, 4864470; 515074, 

4864465; 515081, 4864461; 515088, 

4864451; 515080, 4864455; 515069, 

4864461; 515057, 4864472; 515049, 

4864483; 515044, 4864499; 515035, 

4864514; 515015, 4864525; 514990, 

4864540; 514971, 4864551; 514955, 

4864559; 514947, 4864566; 514943, 

4864559; 514947, 4864546; 514953, 

4864520; 514962, 4864502; 514983, 

4864484; 514988, 4864475; 514997, 

4864459; 515007, 4864442; 515015, 

4864432; 515025, 4864416; 515038, 

4864404; 515054, 4864391; 515064, 

4864373; 515070, 4864353; 515075, 

4864332; 515079, 4864311; 515093, 

4864315; 515105, 4864318; 515120, 

4864321; 515123, 4864317; 515116, 

4864316; 515106, 4864314; 515098, 

4864311; 515088, 4864303; 515081, 

4864299; 515085, 4864290; 515093, 

4864270; 515102, 4864250; 515108, 

4864241; 515113, 4864232; 515119, 

4864213; 515125, 4864200; 515142, 

4864194; 515156, 4864181; 515153, 

4864175; 515136, 4864189; 515126, 

4864191; 515126, 4864188; 515129, 

4864174; 515136, 4864158; 515130, 

4864155; 515126, 4864159; 515125, 

4864167; 515120, 4864181; 515113, 

4864195; 515107, 4864211; 515099, 

4864235; 515093, 4864241; 515084, 

4864263; 515074, 4864285; 515063, 

4864295; 515056, 4864314; 515054, 

4864334; 515052, 4864338; 515046, 

4864354; 515044, 4864369; 515028, 

4864384; 515012, 4864394; 515002, 

4864409; 514992, 4864422; 514986, 

4864433; 514977, 4864442; 514967, 

4864461; 514956, 4864471; 514959, 

4864474; 514944, 4864493; 514939, 

4864507; 514934, 4864522; 514927, 

4864546; 514921, 4864559; 514909, 

4864572; 514902, 4864582; 514884, 

4864597; 514879, 4864607; 514859, 

4864619; 514851, 4864630; 514837, 

4864636; 514821, 4864648; 514813, 

4864656; 514799, 4864660; 514797, 

4864675; 514809, 4864672; 514821, 

4864668; 514834, 4864666; 514845, 

4864665; 514857, 4864664; 514873, 

4864650; 514886, 4864641; 514898, 

4864625; 514909, 4864612; 514924, 

4864600; 514939, 4864590; 514959, 

4864575; 514970, 4864567; 

(iii) See paragraph (23)(iii) for a map 

showing critical habitat unit 3C. 

(23) Unit 3D: Elijah Bristow Island 

Pond, Lane County, Oregon. 

(i) This unit totals 2.1 ha (5.2 ac), is 

owned by the OPRD, and is located in 

Elijah Bristow State Park in Lane 

County, Oregon. 

(ii) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates 

(E,N): 513941, 4864549; 513945, 

4864542; 513958, 4864547; 513962, 

4864552; 513966, 4864555; 513973, 

4864557; 513978, 4864556; 513982, 

4864554; 513989, 4864549; 513994, 

4864543; 513996, 4864536; 513998, 

4864532; 514001, 4864519; 514004, 

4864514; 514006, 4864512; 514019, 

4864508; 514030, 4864499; 514037, 

4864494; 514047, 4864488; 514060, 

4864481; 514065, 4864482; 514067, 

4864486; 514069, 4864489; 514071, 

4864491; 514075, 4864488; 514074, 

4864485; 514072, 4864481; 514072, 

4864477; 514075, 4864470; 514082, 

4864459; 514083, 4864448; 514080, 

4864429; 514075, 4864408; 514073, 

4864391; 514072, 4864374; 514071, 

4864364; 514083, 4864365; 514084, 

4864361; 514083, 4864349; 514081, 

4864341; 514072, 4864327; 514064, 

4864318; 514055, 4864310; 514043, 

4864307; 514036, 4864310; 514021, 

4864322; 514013, 4864327; 514008, 

4864340; 513999, 4864350; 513988, 

4864362; 513979, 4864371; 513972, 

4864380; 513970, 4864388; 513974, 

4864396; 513982, 4864404; 513991, 

4864414; 514006, 4864432; 514017, 

4864442; 514020, 4864458; 514007, 

4864468; 513999, 4864466; 513993, 

4864461; 513985, 4864465; 513986, 

4864475; 513985, 4864488; 513973, 

4864496; 513963, 4864499; 513952, 

4864495; 513954, 4864489; 513963, 

4864481; 513968, 4864475; 513978, 

4864466; 513982, 4864460; 513981, 

4864455; 513976, 4864451; 513969, 

4864452; 513957, 4864458; 513953, 

4864460; 513950, 4864466; 513950, 

4864473; 513945, 4864483; 513942, 

4864493; 513937, 4864504; 513932, 

4864517; 513929, 4864519; 513920, 

4864519; 513913, 4864518; 513904, 

4864523; 513892, 4864533; 513898, 

4864552; 513907, 4864564; 513921, 

4864566; 513929, 4864576; 513936, 

4864578; 513938, 4864556; 513941, 

4864549; 

(iii) Map of Units 3B, 3C, and 3D of 

critical habitat for the Oregon chub 

(Oregonichthys crameri) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 11057 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULESER10MR10.011</GPH>
11058 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

(24) Unit 3E: Dexter Reservoir RV 

Alcove DEX3, Lane County, Oregon. 

(i) This unit totals 0.4 ha (0.9 ac) and 

is owned by the USACE. The unit is 

located on the south side of Highway 58 

off Dexter Reservoir next to a 

recreational vehicle (RV) park, in Lane 

County, Oregon. 

(ii) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates 

(E,N): 515412, 4862223; 515408, 

4862221; 515405, 4862216; 515404, 

4862217; 515403, 4862220; 515402, 

4862222; 515400, 4862223; 515392, 

4862221; 515388, 4862222; 515378, 

4862227; 515374, 4862237; 515364, 

4862250; 515358, 4862257; 515352, 

4862262; 515344, 4862272; 515334, 

4862285; 515323, 4862300; 515314, 

4862311; 515304, 4862315; 515297, 

4862329; 515292, 4862335; 515285, 

4862340; 515286, 4862342; 515293, 

4862339; 515299, 4862333; 515303, 

4862327; 515313, 4862322; 515320, 

4862314; 515329, 4862311; 515335, 

4862306; 515346, 4862295; 515353, 

4862291; 515364, 4862282; 515376, 

4862274; 515388, 4862267; 515399, 

4862261; 515410, 4862255; 515420, 

4862250; 515427, 4862248; 515434, 

4862246; 515436, 4862243; 515433, 

4862239; 515429, 4862235; 515425, 

4862230; 515422, 4862226; 515419, 

4862223; 515412, 4862223; 

(iii) See paragraph (25)(iii) for a map 

showing critical habitat unit 3E. 

(25) Unit 3F: Dexter Reservoir Alcove 

PIT1, Lane County, Oregon. 

(i) This unit totals 0.1 ha (0.3 ac) 

measured at the annual high-water 

elevation, and is owned by the USACE. 

The unit is located on the south side of 

Highway 58 off Dexter Reservoir, in 

Lane County, Oregon. 

(ii) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates 

(E,N): 517131, 4861681; 517127, 

4861680; 517127, 4861680; 517128, 

4861683; 517130, 4861693; 517128, 

4861699; 517128, 4861703; 517127, 

4861711; 517123, 4861719; 517123, 

4861722; 517123, 4861722; 517126, 

4861721; 517129, 4861719; 517135, 

4861717; 517145, 4861712; 517153, 

4861708; 517158, 4861705; 517164, 

4861702; 517173, 4861699; 517179, 

4861695; 517182, 4861692; 517182, 

4861689; 517181, 4861689; 517171, 

4861688; 517165, 4861686; 517159, 

4861685; 517154, 4861684; 517138, 

4861684; 517131, 4861681; 

(iii) Map of Units 3E and 3F of critical 

habitat for the Oregon chub 

(Oregonichthys crameri) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 11059 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULESER10MR10.012</GPH>
11060 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

(26) Unit 3G: East Fork Minnow Creek 

Pond, Lane County, Oregon. 

(i) This unit totals 1.3 ha (3.3 ac), is 

owned by the ODOT, and is a large 

beaver pond located on a small tributary 

to Minnow Creek that drains into 

Lookout Point Reservoir in Lane 

County, Oregon. 

(ii) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates 

(E,N): 521267, 4859872; 521270, 

4859868; 521272, 4859872; 521279, 

4859877; 521283, 4859872; 521287, 

4859862; 521293, 4859852; 521305, 

4859841; 521312, 4859841; 521329, 

4859825; 521340, 4859819; 521345, 

4859817; 521350, 4859811; 521354, 

4859800; 521347, 4859790; 521337, 

4859797; 521330, 4859794; 521326, 

4859791; 521324, 4859781; 521320, 

4859757; 521303, 4859756; 521296, 

4859770; 521292, 4859784; 521283, 

4859789; 521262, 4859789; 521243, 

4859788; 521224, 4859785; 521210, 

4859776; 521193, 4859770; 521181, 

4859777; 521169, 4859784; 521152, 

4859792; 521134, 4859800; 521139, 

4859809; 521149, 4859814; 521161, 

4859812; 521165, 4859821; 521173, 

4859824; 521177, 4859826; 521189, 

4859838; 521197, 4859843; 521208, 

4859850; 521218, 4859851; 521225, 

4859850; 521232, 4859850; 521234, 

4859850; 521234, 4859855; 521231, 

4859857; 521226, 4859864; 521223, 

4859870; 521227, 4859875; 521237, 

4859876; 521248, 4859866; 521254, 

4859873; 521259, 4859874; 521253, 

4859879; 521250, 4859887; 521246, 

4859895; 521250, 4859899; 521254, 

4859890; 521258, 4859888; 521260, 

4859882; 521267, 4859872; 

(iii) Map of Unit 3G of critical habitat 

for the Oregon chub (Oregonichthys 

crameri) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 11061 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULESER10MR10.013</GPH>
11062 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

(27) Unit 3H: Hospital Pond, Lane 

County, Oregon. 

(i) This unit totals 0.5 ha (1.1 ac), is 

owned by the USACE, and is located on 

the north side of the gravel road on the 

north shore of Lookout Point Reservoir 

in Lane County, Oregon. 

(ii) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates 

(E,N): 533030, 4851782; 533047, 

4851779; 533065, 4851779; 533078, 

4851772; 533093, 4851767; 533109, 

4851767; 533120, 4851766; 533135, 

4851762; 533147, 4851755; 533157, 

4851743; 533164, 4851732; 533169, 

4851722; 533173, 4851709; 533175, 

4851702; 533174, 4851698; 533167, 

4851699; 533163, 4851705; 533150, 

4851705; 533139, 4851715; 533130, 

4851720; 533117, 4851725; 533105, 

4851732; 533096, 4851735; 533079, 

4851748; 533067, 4851753; 533050, 

4851760; 533027, 4851769; 533017, 

4851777; 533022, 4851781; 533030, 

4851782; 

(iii) Map of Unit 3H of critical habitat 

for the Oregon chub (Oregonichthys 

crameri) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 11063 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULESER10MR10.014</GPH>
11064 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

(28) Unit 3I: Shady Dell Pond, Lane 

County, Oregon. 

(i) This unit totals 1.1 ha (2.8 ac), is 

owned by the United States Forest 

Service (USFS), and is located in a 

USFS campground at the far southeast 

end of Lookout Point Reservoir along 

the south side of State Highway 58 in 

Lane County, Oregon. 

(ii) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates 

(E,N): 536587, 4848720; 536593, 

4848709; 536589, 4848707; 536583, 

4848718; 536580, 4848713; 536581, 

4848701; 536587, 4848687; 536597, 

4848678; 536612, 4848659; 536628, 

4848646; 536647, 4848637; 536649, 

4848637; 536670, 4848619; 536685, 

4848593; 536697, 4848576; 536699, 

4848573; 536706, 4848563; 536716, 

4848550; 536722, 4848532; 536730, 

4848513; 536726, 4848496; 536727, 

4848475; 536718, 4848472; 536725, 

4848456; 536732, 4848443; 536746, 

4848432; 536762, 4848423; 536778, 

4848418; 536799, 4848397; 536797, 

4848392; 536786, 4848395; 536766, 

4848401; 536746, 4848410; 536732, 

4848424; 536720, 4848433; 536706, 

4848439; 536691, 4848455; 536687, 

4848463; 536684, 4848474; 536680, 

4848493; 536681, 4848515; 536684, 

4848529; 536685, 4848543; 536683, 

4848563; 536673, 4848570; 536653, 

4848574; 536626, 4848570; 536612, 

4848573; 536612, 4848580; 536618, 

4848579; 536625, 4848578; 536632, 

4848579; 536641, 4848580; 536638, 

4848589; 536634, 4848601; 536630, 

4848611; 536624, 4848619; 536607, 

4848638; 536591, 4848651; 536573, 

4848674; 536562, 4848694; 536560, 

4848716; 536562, 4848735; 536563, 

4848747; 536567, 4848753; 536572, 

4848743; 536576, 4848736; 536587, 

4848720; and excluding land bound by 

536675, 4848580; 536681, 4848577; 

536687, 4848573; 536685, 4848579; 

536683, 4848582; 536679, 4848588; 

536675, 4848593; 536672, 4848598; 

536669, 4848602; 536666, 4848607; 

536662, 4848614; 536658, 4848617; 

536654, 4848622; 536650, 4848625; 

536645, 4848628; 536640, 4848626; 

536638, 4848623; 536640, 4848618; 

536643, 4848613; 536647, 4848605; 

536652, 4848596; 536655, 4848590; 

536657, 4848586; 536663, 4848584; 

536669, 4848582; 536675, 4848580; 

(iii) See paragraph (29)(iii) for a map 

showing critical habitat unit 3I. 

(29) Unit 3J: Buckhead Creek, Lane 

County, Oregon. 

(i) This unit totals 3.8 ha (9.3 ac) and 

is owned by the USFS. Buckhead Creek 

is a tributary flowing into the Middle 

Fork Willamette River at the northeast 

end of Lookout Point Reservoir in Lane 

County, Oregon. 

(ii) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates 

(E,N): 538138, 4847044; 538137, 

4847035; 538128, 4847039; 538122, 

4847041; 538118, 4847040; 538109, 

4847040; 538105, 4847038; 538106, 

4847032; 538113, 4847031; 538119, 

4847032; 538126, 4847029; 538129, 

4847025; 538128, 4847013; 538123, 

4847001; 538120, 4846985; 538113, 

4846970; 538108, 4846947; 538102, 

4846919; 538092, 4846888; 538081, 

4846854; 538071, 4846816; 538061, 

4846782; 538055, 4846782; 538052, 

4846787; 538055, 4846802; 538053, 

4846821; 538047, 4846811; 538041, 

4846802; 538044, 4846781; 538049, 

4846775; 538046, 4846764; 538037, 

4846768; 538031, 4846763; 538033, 

4846775; 538033, 4846793; 538033, 

4846807; 538038, 4846822; 538041, 

4846834; 538049, 4846855; 538056, 

4846894; 538051, 4846903; 538053, 

4846916; 538058, 4846927; 538065, 

4846941; 538066, 4846946; 538061, 

4846944; 538056, 4846942; 538048, 

4846936; 538038, 4846933; 538033, 

4846933; 538022, 4846937; 538016, 

4846936; 538011, 4846935; 538007, 

4846937; 538003, 4846941; 538004, 

4846947; 538007, 4846951; 538011, 

4846954; 538015, 4846953; 538022, 

4846950; 538028, 4846952; 538036, 

4846955; 538045, 4846958; 538053, 

4846959; 538061, 4846963; 538067, 

4846970; 538072, 4846980; 538077, 

4846990; 538080, 4847000; 538080, 

4847013; 538081, 4847018; 538082, 

4847040; 538082, 4847055; 538099, 

4847055; 538112, 4847055; 538120, 

4847055; 538134, 4847048; 538138, 

4847044; 

Land bounded by the following UTM 

Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 

537853, 4848143; 537863, 4848139; 

537873, 4848135; 537889, 4848129; 

537907, 4848123; 537925, 4848116; 

537946, 4848106; 537968, 4848096; 

537985, 4848085; 537996, 4848080; 

538021, 4848066; 538035, 4848057; 

538048, 4848049; 538058, 4848042; 

538068, 4848035; 538078, 4848030; 

538089, 4848023; 538102, 4848014; 

538112, 4848007; 538120, 4847996; 

538124, 4847987; 538133, 4847973; 

538147, 4847961; 538159, 4847947; 

538168, 4847928; 538179, 4847913; 

538194, 4847901; 538208, 4847884; 

538215, 4847877; 538237, 4847852; 

538253, 4847837; 538266, 4847827; 

538281, 4847806; 538297, 4847786; 

538308, 4847767; 538311, 4847761; 

538305, 4847754; 538281, 4847743; 

538264, 4847737; 538251, 4847756; 

538229, 4847789; 538198, 4847830; 

538185, 4847854; 538178, 4847877; 

538171, 4847890; 538160, 4847902; 

538149, 4847918; 538139, 4847935; 

538129, 4847948; 538118, 4847956; 

538109, 4847971; 538102, 4847984; 

538096, 4847990; 538083, 4848000; 

538064, 4848010; 538045, 4848021; 

538040, 4848031; 538032, 4848038; 

538023, 4848044; 538013, 4848051; 

538003, 4848048; 537985, 4848058; 

537966, 4848067; 537959, 4848065; 

537948, 4848069; 537936, 4848076; 

537921, 4848083; 537903, 4848092; 

537885, 4848098; 537872, 4848103; 

537859, 4848107; 537846, 4848114; 

537837, 4848120; 537827, 4848126; 

537820, 4848134; 537822, 4848142; 

537827, 4848146; 537833, 4848143; 

537840, 4848140; 537842, 4848142; 

537841, 4848146; 537837, 4848149; 

537839, 4848152; 537845, 4848149; 

537849, 4848147; 537853, 4848143; 

Land bounded by the following UTM 

Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 

537076, 4848628; 537077, 4848624; 

537075, 4848621; 537064, 4848624; 

537055, 4848627; 537050, 4848626; 

537047, 4848623; 537041, 4848625; 

537036, 4848629; 537031, 4848631; 

537025, 4848638; 537030, 4848648; 

537037, 4848649; 537048, 4848647; 

537056, 4848643; 537063, 4848638; 

537076, 4848628; 

Land bounded by the following UTM 

Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 

537131, 4848537; 537127, 4848528; 

537121, 4848532; 537119, 4848556; 

537116, 4848587; 537112, 4848619; 

537111, 4848643; 537102, 4848662; 

537091, 4848676; 537068, 4848696; 

537045, 4848721; 537022, 4848739; 

537013, 4848747; 537000, 4848763; 

536993, 4848769; 536999, 4848773; 

537010, 4848767; 537024, 4848761; 

537067, 4848723; 537103, 4848689; 

537116, 4848670; 537127, 4848647; 

537128, 4848621; 537131, 4848596; 

537131, 4848576; 537131, 4848537; 

Land bounded by the following UTM 

Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 

536751, 4848812; 536749, 4848809; 

536747, 4848809; 536732, 4848812; 

536719, 4848818; 536712, 4848820; 

536695, 4848827; 536692, 4848831; 

536694, 4848834; 536704, 4848839; 

536714, 4848838; 536727, 4848837; 

536734, 4848831; 536739, 4848830; 

536747, 4848821; 536749, 4848817; 

536751, 4848812; 

(iii) Map of Units 3I and 3J of critical 

habitat for the Oregon chub 

(Oregonichthys crameri) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 11065 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULESER10MR10.015</GPH>
11066 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

(30) Unit 3K: Wicopee Pond, Lane 

County, Oregon. 

(i) This unit totals 1.4 ha (3.3 ac) and 

is owned by the USFS. 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 in Lane 

County, Oregon. 

(ii) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates 

(E,N): 557923, 4838857; 557919, 

4838854; 557919, 4838854; 557926, 

4838841; 557935, 4838835; 557951, 

4838829; 557948, 4838819; 557955, 

4838814; 557958, 4838820; 557963, 

4838824; 557971, 4838825; 557977, 

4838824; 557982, 4838823; 557984, 

4838817; 557978, 4838822; 557972, 

4838823; 557970, 4838823; 557966, 

4838816; 557963, 4838813; 557968, 

4838803; 557970, 4838793; 557978, 

4838789; 557977, 4838786; 557983, 

4838780; 557994, 4838777; 557996, 

4838772; 557997, 4838771; 558006, 

4838770; 558018, 4838760; 558021, 

4838741; 558026, 4838725; 558037, 

4838714; 558041, 4838701; 558040, 

4838682; 558058, 4838684; 558080, 

4838674; 558079, 4838673; 558077, 

4838674; 558068, 4838675; 558058, 

4838674; 558049, 4838677; 558038, 

4838677; 558037, 4838684; 558032, 

4838695; 558022, 4838698; 558019, 

4838705; 558006, 4838709; 558004, 

4838715; 557997, 4838708; 557990, 

4838708; 557986, 4838710; 557978, 

4838715; 557976, 4838722; 557971, 

4838727; 557965, 4838732; 557959, 

4838742; 557954, 4838754; 557952, 

4838763; 557956, 4838770; 557951, 

4838778; 557947, 4838769; 557948, 

4838766; 557935, 4838767; 557924, 

4838776; 557918, 4838781; 557904, 

4838782; 557898, 4838786; 557890, 

4838791; 557877, 4838800; 557865, 

4838811; 557859, 4838814; 557851, 

4838819; 557846, 4838827; 557840, 

4838832; 557834, 4838837; 557833, 

4838844; 557834, 4838850; 557842, 

4838858; 557854, 4838868; 557869, 

4838875; 557878, 4838880; 557887, 

4838885; 557902, 4838897; 557913, 

4838905; 557919, 4838906; 557922, 

4838902; 557923, 4838891; 557918, 

4838889; 557920, 4838884; 557926, 

4838876; 557923, 4838863; 557923, 

4838857; and excluding land bound by 

557921, 4838792; 557923, 4838788; 

557932, 4838789; 557932, 4838793; 

557931, 4838796; 557933, 4838803; 

557929, 4838808; 557925, 4838805; 

557922, 4838800; 557922, 4838796; 

557922, 4838793; 557921, 4838792; and 

excluding land bound by 557990, 

4838734; 557995, 4838729; 558006, 

4838731; 558006, 4838730; 558009, 

4838724; 558014, 4838720; 558022, 

4838721; 558018, 4838722; 558015, 

4838728; 558012, 4838742; 558007, 

4838749; 557993, 4838754; 557987, 

4838754; 557984, 4838747; 557986, 

4838741; 557990, 4838734; 

(iii) Map of Unit 3K of critical habitat 

for the Oregon chub (Oregonichthys 

crameri) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 11067 

* * * * * Dated: February 22, 2010. 

Thomas L. Strickland. 

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 

Parks. 

[FR Doc. 2010–4654 Filed 3–9– 10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULESER10MR10.016</GPH>