Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Determination of Critical Habitat for Lost River Sucker and Shortnose Sucker

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes to designate

critical habitat for the Lost River sucker (Deltistes luxatus) and

shortnose sucker (Chasmistes brevirostris), two species federally

listed as endangered pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended (Act). Both species are large, long-lived fish endemic to the

Upper Klamath River Basin of Oregon and California. The proposed

designation includes a total of approximately 182,400 hectares (456,000

acres) of stream, river, lake, and shoreline areas as critical habitat

for the shortnose sucker and approximately 170,000 hectares (424,000

acres) of stream, river, lake, and shoreline areas as critical habitat

for the Lost River sucker. This proposed critical habitat designation

would result in additional review requirements under section 7 of the

Act with regard to Federal agency actions. Section 4 of the Act

requires the Service to consider economic costs and benefits prior to

making a final decision on the size and scope of critical habitat.

DATES: Comments will be accepted until January 30, 1995. Public hearing

requests must be received by January 17, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials concerning this proposal should be

sent to the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland

Field Office, 2600 S.E. 98th Avenue, Suite 100, Portland, Oregon 97266.

Comments and materials received will be available for public

inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above

address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Russell D. Peterson, Field

Supervisor, Portland Field Office, at the above address, (503) 231-

6179.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Biological Considerations

The Upper Klamath River Basin (Basin) above Iron Gate Dam on the

Klamath River encompasses a drainage area of approximately 2,120,400

hectares (5,301,000 acres) in Oregon and California (USFWS 1992). Early

records from the Basin indicate that the Lost River and shortnose

suckers were common and abundant. Cope (1884) noted that Upper Klamath

Lake sustained ``a great population of fishes'', while Gilbert (1898)

noted that the Lost River sucker was ``the most important food-fish of

the Klamath Lake region.'' Spring sucker runs ``in incredible numbers''

(Gilbert 1898) were relied upon as a food source by the Klamath and

Modoc Indians and were taken by local settlers for human consumption

and livestock feed (Cope 1879, Coots 1965, Howe 1968). Several

commercial operations processed ``enormous amounts'' of suckers into

oil, dried fish, canned fish, and other products (Andreasen 1975, Howe

1968).

The Upper Klamath Basin once had over 350,000 acres of wetlands

(USFWS 1989), extensive riparian corridors, and functional floodplains

that could intercept storm runoff, dampen sharp peaks in the

hydrograph, reduce erosion forces, remove organic and inorganic

nutrients, and improve water quality (Mitsch and Gosselink 1986). The

loss of these wetlands has had large scale detrimental effects to the

quality and quantity of suitable sucker habitat (USFWS 1993).

Currently, less than 75,000 acres of wetlands remain in the Basin

(USFWS 1992).

The Lost River sucker is native to Upper Klamath Lake (Williams et

al. 1985) and its tributaries including the Williamson River, the

Sprague River, the Wood River, Crooked Creek, Seven Mile Creek, Four

Mile Creek and slough, Odessa Creek, Crystal Creek (Stine 1982). The

Lost River sucker also historically inhabited the Lost River watershed,

Tule Lake, Lower Klamath Lake, and Sheepy Lake (Moyle 1976), but is not

considered native to the Klamath River. The present distribution of the

Lost River sucker includes Upper Klamath Lake and its tributaries

(Buettner and Scoppettone 1990), Clear Lake Reservoir and its

tributaries (Buettner, pers. comm. cited in USFWS 1993), Tule Lake and

the Lost River up to Anderson-Rose Dam (Scoppettone, pers. comm. cited

in USFWS 1993), the Klamath River downstream to Copco Reservoir (Beak

1987) and probably to Iron Gate Reservoir (Maria, pers. comm. cited in

USFWS 1993). In the Upper Klamath Lake watershed, Lost River sucker

spawning runs are primarily limited to Sucker Springs in Upper Klamath

Lake, and the Sprague and Williamson Rivers. Spawning runs also occur

in the Wood River and in Crooked Creek (Markle and Simon 1993) in this

watershed. An additional run may occur in Sheepy Lake in the Lower

Klamath Lake watershed (Johnson, pers. comm. cited in USFWS 1993), and

spawning has been documented in the Clear Lake watershed (Buettner and

Scoppettone 1990).

Shortnose sucker historically occurred in Upper Klamath Lake and

its tributaries (Miller and Smith 1981; Williams et al. 1985), although

Moyle (1976) includes Lake of the Woods, Oregon, and probably the Lost

River system (Scoppettone and Vinyard 1991). The current distribution

of the shortnose sucker includes Upper Klamath Lake and its

tributaries, Klamath River downstream to Iron Gate Reservoir, Clear

Lake Reservoir and its tributaries, Gerber Reservoir and its

tributaries, the Lost River, and Tule Lake. Gerber Reservoir represents

the only habitat with a shortnose sucker population that does not also

have a Lost River sucker population. In the Upper Klamath Lake

watershed, shortnose sucker spawning runs are primarily limited to the

Sprague and Williamson Rivers, although spawning runs may also occur in

the Wood River and in Crooked Creek (Markle and Simon 1993). Shortnose

sucker spawning has been documented in the Clear Lake watershed

(Buettner and Scoppettone 1990).

Both species are primarily lake residents that spawn in rivers,

streams, or springs associated with lake habitats. After hatching,

larval suckers migrate out of spawning substrates, which are usually

gravels or cobbles, and drift downstream into lake habitats. Shoreline

river and lake habitats with vegetative structure are known to be

important during larval and juvenile rearing (Klamath Tribe 1991,

Markle and Simon 1993). The Lost River and shortnose suckers are

omnivorous bottom feeders whose diets include detritus, zooplankton,

algae and aquatic insects (Buettner and Scoppettone 1990). Sexual

maturity for Lost River suckers sampled in Upper Klamath Lake occurs

between the ages of 6 to 14 years with most maturing at age 9 (Buettner

and Scoppettone 1990). Most shortnose suckers reach sexual maturity at

age 6 or 7 (Buettner and Scoppettone 1990).

The historical range of the Lost River and shortnose suckers has

been fragmented by construction of dams, instream diversion structures,

irrigation canals, and the general development of the U.S. Bureau of

Reclamation's Klamath Project and related agricultural processes.

Because habitat fragmentation limits or prevents genetic interchange

among populations, extinction could result as genetic diversity

decreases and populations become more susceptible to environmental

change. The combined effects of damming of rivers, instream flow

diversions, draining of marshes, dredging of Upper Klamath Lake, and

other water manipulations has threatened both species with extinction

(53 FR 27130). Additionally, water quality degradation in the Upper

Klamath Lake watershed has led to large-scale fish kills related to

algal bloom cycles in the lake (Kann and Smith 1993). Introduced exotic

fishes may reduce recruitment through competition with, or predation

upon, suckers and sucker larvae (USFWS 1993, Dunsmoor 1993).

Conservation of the Lost River and shortnose suckers will require the

identification of actions to reduce threats of water quality-induced

fish kills, provide the wide range of habitats needed by all size and

age classes of the fishes, reduce the impacts of exotic fishes, improve

migration corridors between habitats and populations, and establish

refugial populations (USFWS 1993).

Previous Federal Actions

The Lost River and shortnose suckers were proposed as endangered

species on August 26, 1987 (52 FR 32145). The final rule listing the

Lost River and shortnose suckers as endangered was published on July

18, 1988 (53 FR 27130). On September 9, 1991, the Service received a

60-day notice of intent to sue from the Oregon Natural Resources

Council (ONRC) for failure to prepare a recovery plan and to designate

critical habitat for the Lost River and shortnose suckers. On November

12, 1991, ONRC filed suit in Federal Court. On April 21, 1992, ONRC and

the Service entered into an agreement to settle the litigation. The

agreement required completion of a final recovery plan on or before

March 1, 1993; a proposal to designate critical habitat on or before

April 1, 1993; and a finding on the proposed critical habitat by April

1, 1994. After settling the suit, the Service negotiated an extension

of the April 1, 1993, date for proposing critical habitat to October 1,

1993. A second extension was negotiated for the publication of a

proposed rule by March 10, 1994, and publication of a final

determination by November 29, 1994. The final recovery plan for both

species was signed by the Regional Director on March 17, 1993. A

subsequent extension provided for issuance of a proposal by August 19,

1994, and a final determination by February 28, 1995.

Determination of Critical Habitat

``Critical habitat,'' as defined in section 3(5)(A) of the Act

means: (i) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by

the species at the time it is listed, on which are found those physical

or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species

and (II) which may require special management considerations or

protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area

occupied by a species at the time it is listed upon a determination by

the Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of the

species.

The term ``conservation,'' as defined in section 3(3) of the Act,

means: the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to

bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at

which the measures provided pursuant to the Act are no longer

necessary.

Therefore, in the case of critical habitat, conservation represents

protection of the areas essential to recover a species to the point of

delisting (i.e., the species is recovered and is removed from the list

of endangered and threatened species). Section 3(5)(C) further states

that the entire geographical area that can be occupied by the species

shall not be included in critical habitat except in special

circumstances.

Role of Critical Habitat in Species Conservation

A designation of critical habitat may not, by itself, achieve

recovery, but is one of several measures available to contribute to

conservation of a species. Critical habitat focuses conservation

activities by identifying areas that contain essential habitat features

(primary constituent elements) regardless of whether the areas are

currently occupied by the listed species. Such designations alert

Federal agencies, States, the public, and other entities about the

importance of an area for the conservation of a listed species.

Critical habitat also identifies areas that may require special

management or protection. Areas designated as critical habitat receive

protection under section 7 of the Act with regard to actions carried

out, funded, or authorized by Federal agencies. Section 7 of the Act

requires that Federal agencies insure that their actions are not likely

to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat.

Designation of critical habitat does not create a management plan

for a listed species. Designation does not automatically prohibit

certain actions, establish numerical population goals, or prescribe

specific management actions (inside or outside of critical habitat).

However, critical habitat may provide added protection for areas

designated and thus assist in achieving recovery. Areas outside of

critical habitat that contain one or more of the primary constituent

elements may still be important for conservation of a species. Areas

not designated as critical habitat also may be of considerable value in

maintaining ecosystem integrity and supporting other species, thus

indirectly contributing to recovery.

Relationship of Critical Habitat to Recovery Plan

The Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker recovery plan has as its

primary objective ``to restore the Lost River and shortnose sucker

populations to delisting status'' (USFWS 1993). The plan lists interim

goals of one stable refugial population of at least 500 individuals for

each unique stock of suckers. The recovery plan recognizes the lack of

high quality data about habitat needs, availability, and use by the

populations it is intended to recover. It is therefore a general plan

that discusses the need for focusing research efforts to guide the

development, and ultimately implementation, of recovery efforts. It

outlines the pertinent issues and recommends means to further

investigate each so that recovery planning will be based on solid

information and thus have a higher probability of success.

This proposed rule would further delineate the areas generally

described in the recovery plan as important to the species' recovery.

The critical habitat units in the proposed rule include the majority of

the known populations of Lost River and shortnose suckers as described

in the recovery plan. Designation of critical habitat will help to

improve and stabilize the habitat conditions that support the

populations of sucker listed in the recovery plan, which will aid in

the attainment of the interim recovery goals. Critical habitat may also

ultimately improve our knowledge and understanding of habitat

conditions and the relationship of the listed suckers to those

conditions by focusing research efforts within CHU's. This will have

the effect of providing much of the information identified in recovery

plan tasks as necessary to proceed with the recovery program for these

species.

Primary Constituent Elements

In determining which areas to designate as critical habitat for a

species, the Service considers those physical and biological features

that are essential to the species conservation and that may require

special management considerations or protection. Such physical and

biological features are stated in 50 CFR 424.12 and include, but are

not limited to, the following:

(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, rearing of offspring,

germination, or seed dispersal; and generally,

(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are

representative of the historical geographical and ecological

distributions of a species.

The Service has determined that the physical and biological

features (referred to as the primary constituent elements) that support

spawning, foraging, cover, refugia and corridors between these areas,

and growth and dispersal are essential to the conservation of these

species. The primary constituent elements are listed below.

Water

This element is defined as a sufficient quantity of water of

suitable quality (i.e., temperature, dissolved oxygen, flow rate, pH,

nutrients, lack of contaminants, turbidity, etc.) to provide conditions

required for the particular life stage for each species.

Physical Habitat

This element is defined as including areas of the Upper Klamath

Basin watershed that are inhabited or potentially habitable by suckers

for use as refugia from stressful water quality conditions or

predation, or for use as in spawning, nursery, feeding, or rearing

areas, or as corridors between these areas.

Biological Environment

The components of this element include food supply and a natural

scheme of predation, parasitism, and competition in the biological

environment. Food supply is a function of nutrient supply,

productivity, and availability for each life stage of the species.

Predation, although considered a normal component of this environment,

may be out of balance due to introduced fish species or the elimination

of refugial structures such as cover and shelter. Competition from

nonnative fish species and parasitism may also be elevated due to

stresses induced by degraded habitats.

A more detailed discussion of these primary constituent elements is

contained in the Lost River and Shortnose Sucker Critical Habitat Draft

Biological Support Document (Biological Support Document) which is

available upon request from the Portland Field Office (see ADDRESSES

section, above). The Biological Support Document contains detailed

discussions of the biological basis for the primary constituent

elements.

Criteria for Identifying Critical Habitat

Several qualitative criteria were considered in proposing specific

areas as critical habitat. The following discussion describes the

criteria and provides a brief explanation of their use in proposing

specific areas.

Current and Historic Range: Proposed critical habitat units include

much of the known current and historic ranges of both species. Some

portions of the currently inhabited range are not included in this

proposed rule, and no potentially suitable habitats outside either the

current or historic range of either species are included.

Suitable Spawning and Migration Habitats: Areas known to provide

either spawning habitat or migration corridors to or from spawning

habitats are included in this proposed rule.

Areas Likely to Provide Water Quality: Areas within the current or

historic range of both species that are likely to provide suitable

water quality are included in this proposed rule. In general, these

sites are known refugial areas (such as Pelican Bay), water sources

such as springs, or those areas falling within the 100-year floodplain,

where defined, or areas within 300 feet on either side of streams

within the current or historic range of the species. Many wetland areas

are included because of their important role in maintaining water

quality.

Areas to Maintain Rangewide Distribution: The major habitats

currently utilized by both species across their respective ranges are

included within the proposed designation.

Areas to Reduce Fragmentation of Populations: The boundaries of

proposed critical habitat units were drawn to reduce the likelihood of

separating, for example, a spawning habitat from the population of

suckers that uses that habitat.

Adequacy of Existing Protection: The Service considered the legal

status of lands in proposing specific areas as critical habitat. Areas

with permanent legal protection, such as congressionally designated

wilderness areas, national parks, and portions of national wildlife

refuges are not proposed.

Application of the aforementioned criteria resulted in the proposal

of three main types of aquatic habitats and associated uplands within

the Upper Klamath Basin watershed:

(1) Lakes, reservoirs, rivers, and streams within the current or

historic distribution of the Lost River and/or shortnose sucker;

(2) Lands adjacent to habitats identified in (1) (above) lying

within the 100-year floodplain as defined on Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM); and,

(3) Lands adjacent to stream habitats identified in (1) (above) but

outside areas where FEMA 100-year flood plains have been identified in

(2) (above), but that fall within a zone extending 300 feet on either

side of the stream or river.

Included within the proposed designation are Federal, state and

private lands and waters. Designating the six units as critical habitat

would provide additional protection for the major habitat and/or

population areas, and this protection would further the conservation of

the species.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

The regulations require that the Service define ``* * * by specific

limits using reference points and lines as found on standard

topographic maps'' those areas designated as critical habitat (50 CFR

424.12 (c)). Water bodies such as lakes, rivers, and streams are

commonly found on standard topographic maps, but 100-year floodplains

and the delineation of a 300-foot distance from a given river or stream

are not. Therefore, the Service has described the boundaries of each

proposed critical habitat unit by extending the legal description out

to the nearest section boundary as found on standard topographic maps.

Only lands or waters that contain one or more primary constituent

elements are included in the proposed designation. Areas within the

100-year floodplain that have been previously developed are not likely

to provide constituent elements. Thus, paved areas, road and rail

corridors, built-up areas within municipalities, and other previously

developed areas are not likely to provide constituent elements and so

would not be affected by the proposed designation. Diked and leveed

areas to which a connection to the river or stream remains may continue

to provide the constituent elements necessary for inclusion as critical

habitat.

The Service has proposed the 100-year FEMA floodplains as an

indicator of the likely distribution of the primary constituent

elements, and those features that provide for the primary constituent

elements, because the 100-year floodplains are a product of the normal

long term function of the stream. In places, the floodplain may be

altered from its natural state by human activities, but in most cases

these alterations also would affect the ability of those portions of

the floodplain to provide the primary constituent elements. In such

cases as these, inclusion of the 100-year historic floodplain as an

indicator would be inappropriate.

FEMA has not mapped a 100-year floodplain on many portions of the

upper watershed. According to a 1993 report by the interagency Forest

Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT), riparian zones, which

provide for a majority of the primary constituent elements and

components thereof, consist of ``* * * areas where the vegetation

complex and microclimate conditions are products of the combined

presence and influence of perennial and/or intermittent water,

associated high water tables, and soils that exhibit some wetness

characteristics.'' The FEMAT report (USDA et al. 1993) contains a

comprehensive review of riparian ecosystem components and specifies

that riparian zones for fish bearing streams should consist of ``* * *

the area on either side of the stream extending from the edges of the

active stream channel to the top of the inner gorge, or to the outer

edges of the 100-year floodplain, or to the outer edges of riparian

vegetation, or to a distance equal to the height of two site potential

trees, or 300 feet slope distance (600 feet, including both sides of

the stream channel), whichever is greatest.''

Under the Act's regulations (50 CFR 424.12(c)), measurements such

as ``the height of two site potential trees'' cannot be used to

determine critical habitat boundaries. Therefore, the Service has

proposed the 300-foot widths discussed in the FEMAT definition of

riparian areas as an indicator of the likely distribution of primary

constituent elements in the absence of mapped FEMA floodplains.

Description of Units

The proposed designation includes 6 critical habitat units (CHU's)

across the range of the two suckers. Each of these units provides all

three of the primary constituent elements somewhere within the unit,

but critical habitat only exists where one or more of the primary

constituent elements is provided. Of these, all but Unit #6 (Gerber

Reservoir and watershed) are proposed critical habitat for both the

Lost River and shortnose suckers. Unit 6 is proposed as critical

habitat only for the shortnose sucker. A brief description of each unit

and the status of sucker populations inhabiting the units, follows.

Unit 1--Clear Lake and Watershed

Clear Lake supports a large population of shortnose suckers with

consistent recruitment and a diverse age structure (Buettner and

Scoppettone 1991). The status of the Lost River sucker population in

Clear Lake is uncertain due to low catches, but the population is

suspected to be larger than past sampling indicates. The age structure

of Lost River suckers collected is fairly diverse (Scoppettone, per.

comm. cited in USFWS 1993). Recent drought conditions may have reduced

the habitat available for all fish in the Clear Lake watershed and the

long-term effects on the sucker populations is unknown. This unit

includes the waters of Clear Lake reservoir below the highwater line

and a large portion of the Willow Creek and Boles Creek watersheds

tributary to Clear Lake. The unit is located mostly in California with

a small portion of Willow Creek that extends into Oregon, and includes

Clear Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Modoc and Fremont National

Forests, State, and private lands.

Unit 2--Tule Lake

Both Lost River and shortnose suckers have been found in Tule Lake

in recent years (Scoppettone, pers. comm. cited in USFWS 1993).

Researchers have not succeeded in estimating the size of the

populations, but have documented the presence and relatively good

health (as measured by condition factor) of populations of both sucker

species in Tule Lake (Green 1993, Buettner, pers. comm.). Spawning runs

from Tule Lake up the Lost River to Anderson-Rose Dam have been

documented (USFWS 1993). This unit includes the waters of Tule Lake

below the highwater line and the Lost River upstream to Anderson-Rose

Dam. The unit is located mostly in California with a small portion of

the Lost River that extends into Oregon and would include Tule Lake

National Wildlife Refuge, Bureau of Land Management (Susanville

District), National Park Service (Lava Beds National Monument), and

private lands.

Unit 3--Klamath River

Shortnose suckers are present in Copco Reservoir on the Klamath

River as an aged population; all shortnose suckers collected in 1987

were older adults (16-33 years old), indicating that neither successful

reproduction nor recruitment from upstream sources has occurred since

the early 1970's (Buettner and Scoppettone 1991). Lost River and

shortnose suckers have been reported from other reservoirs in the

Klamath River system between Upper Klamath Lake and Iron Gate Reservoir

but little is known about the suckers in this stretch of river. This

unit extends from Iron Gate Dam on the Klamath River in California to

Link River Dam on Upper Klamath Lake in Oregon. The unit includes

Winema and Klamath National Forest, Bureau of Land Management (Lakeview

and Redding Districts), State, and private lands.

Unit 4--Upper Klamath Lake and Watershed (Excluding Williamson and

Sprague Rivers)

Studies conducted in Upper Klamath Lake between the 1960's and the

late 1980's documented serious declines in sucker populations of both

species (Golden 1969, Andreasen 1975, Bienz and Ziller 1987). Fish

kills associated with poor water quality in Upper Klamath Lake

eliminated many larger adults of both species (Buettner and Scoppettone

1990).

In Upper Klamath Lake, recruitment of the Lost River and shortnose

suckers to adult size classes is extremely poor, as evidenced by the

existence of only two strong year classes of spawning adults in the

last 20 years (Buettner and Scoppettone 1990). A juvenile year class

from spawning activity may represent the most recent successful year

class for both sucker species in the Upper Klamath Lake population in

1991 (Markle and Simon 1993).

A distinct population of Lost River suckers spawns at Sucker

Springs on the shores of Upper Klamath Lake from mid-March through mid-

April but may begin as early as the first of February (Andreasen 1975,

Buettner and Scoppettone 1990, Klamath Tribe 1991). The Sucker Springs

population of Lost River suckers appears to be comprised of large,

older adults suggesting a lack of recruitment over the last 20 years

(Buettner, pers. comm. cited in USFWS 1993). In 1993, limited use of

Sucker Springs by shortnose suckers was also documented, but later in

the season and with unknown spawning success (Buettner, pers. comm.,

Dunsmoor, pers. comm.). Entire stocks of Lost River suckers that once

utilized other springs (e.g., Harriman Springs, Barkley Springs)

disappeared between the 1960's and the present (USFWS 1993).

This unit includes the waters of Upper Klamath and Agency Lakes

below the highwater line, portions of the watershed on the west side of

Upper Klamath Lake, and much of the Wood River watershed. The unit also

includes large wetland areas associated with the shorelines of the

lakes and the floodplains of tributary streams and rivers. Property in

this unit is owned by the Winema National Forest, Bureau of Land

Management (Lakeview District), Upper Klamath National Wildlife Refuge,

State, and private citizens.

Unit 5--Williamson and Sprague Rivers

The Williamson and Sprague Rivers provide the primary river

spawning habitat for the Upper Klamath Lake populations of both sucker

species, although the quality and quantity of this habitat has declined

(USFWS 1993). Spawning migrations by both species, and the outmigration

of larval suckers after spawning, occur in the lower Williamson River

and the Sprague River to the Sprague River Dam. Although the dam does

have passage facilities that allow migrating fish access to spawning

habitats upstream of the dam, the availability of suitable spawning

habitat has been reduced (J. Kann, C. Bienz and L. Dunsmoor, Klamath

Tribes, pers. comm. 1993). The lower Williamson River is also important

larval rearing habitat (Klamath Tribe 1991) and may provide important

water quality refugia for adult suckers during summer algal blooms.

This unit extends from the mouth of the Williamson River at Upper

Klamath Lake upstream to the confluence of the Sprague River, then up

the Sprague River to upper limit of the presumed historic distribution

near the confluence of Brown Creek. It includes 100-year floodplains

along both the Williamson and Sprague Rivers, as well as some of their

tributary streams. This unit includes land of the Winema and Fremont

National Forests, Bureau of Land Management (Lakeview District), and

private citizens and lies entirely within the State of Oregon.

Unit 6--Gerber Reservoir and Watershed

Gerber Reservoir is the only major habitat area inhabited by

shortnose suckers but not Lost River suckers. The Gerber Reservoir

population of shortnose suckers appears healthy in that it has

successfully recruited in the last few years (Buettner, pers. comm.

cited in USFWS 1993). Reproduction of shortnose suckers has been

documented in Gerber Reservoir and its tributary streams despite stress

likely induced by low reservoir levels associated with drought

conditions and irrigation releases (Buettner, pers. comm. cited in

USFWS 1993). This unit includes the waters of Gerber Reservoir below

the highwater line and a large portion of the Ben Hall, Barnes, Barnes

Valley, Pitchlog, and Wildhorse Creek watersheds. The unit is located

entirely within the state of Oregon and would include Bureau of Land

Management (Lakeview District), Fremont National Forest, State, and

private lands.

Areas Not Proposed

Section 3(5)(C) of the Act states that ``[e]xcept in those

circumstances determined by the Secretary, critical habitat shall not

include the entire geographical area which can be occupied by the

threatened or endangered species.'' The Service has not proposed the

permanent irrigation canals of the Bureau of Reclamation's Klamath

Project, including portions of the Lost River, even though both species

may occur in these canals. An exception is the Lost River below

Anderson-Rose Dam, which is included because of its connection to Tule

Lake. These canal habitats are barely suitable for suckers and

typically do not provide for large, recruiting populations.

Additionally, the Service has not proposed Lower Klamath Lake, Sheepy

Lake, and other bodies of water on or near the Service's Lower Klamath

National Wildlife Refuge, even though these fall within the current or

historic range of both species. These habitats were excluded because

they do not appear to provide adequate habitats to support stable

populations. Additionally, certain lands that occur within the legally

defined boundaries of proposed critical habitat but do not or could not

provide any of the primary constituent elements are not considered

included in the proposed critical habitat area (see legal descriptions

and accompanying maps).

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to insure that

activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to destroy

or adversely modify designated critical habitat. This Federal

responsibility accompanies, and is in addition to, the section 7(a)(2)

requirement that Federal agencies insure that their actions are not

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species. A

Federal agency must consult with the Service if its proposed action may

affect a listed species or its critical habitat. Regulations

implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are

codified at 50 CFR Part 402.

Destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat is defined

as ``* * * a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes

the value of critical habitat for both the survival and recovery of a

listed species. Such alterations include, but are not limited to,

alterations adversely modifying any of those physical or biological

features that were the basis for determining the habitat to be

critical.'' 50 CFR 402.02. Jeopardy is defined at 50 CFR 402.02 as any

action that would be expected to reduce appreciably the likelihood of

both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild.

Survival and recovery are related concepts. Survival may be viewed

as a linear continuum between recovery and extinction of the species.

The closer one is to recovery, the greater the certainty of the

species' continued survival. The terms ``survival and recovery'' are

thus related by the degree of certainty that the species will persist

over a given period of time. Survival is influenced by a species'

population numbers, distribution throughout its range, stochasticity,

expected duration, and reproductive success.

The Act's definition of critical habitat indicates that the purpose

of critical habitat is to contribute to a species' conservation (i.e.,

recovery). Section 7's mandate that Federal agencies insure against the

destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat is directed at

actions that would diminish the value of habitat essential to the

survival and recovery of listed species, thus providing a regulatory

means of ensuring that Federal actions within critical habitat are

considered with respect to the recovery needs of a listed species.

Thus, the adverse modification standard has been applied closer to the

recovery end of the survival continuum, whereas, the jeopardy standard

has been applied nearer to the extinction end of the continuum.

Once critical habitat designation has been proposed, section

7(a)(4) of the Act and implementing regulations (50 CFR 402.10) require

Federal agencies to confer with the Service on any action that is

likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of the

proposed areas. Conference reports provide advisory conservation

recommendations to assist a Federal agency in identifying and resolving

conflicts that may be caused by the proposed action.

If an agency requests, and the Service concurs, a formal conference

report may be issued. Formal conference reports on proposed critical

habitat contain an opinion that is prepared in accordance with the

procedures for formal consultation as if the critical habitat were

already designated. Such a formal conference report may be adopted as

the biological opinion pursuant to 50 CFR 402.10(d) when the critical

habitat is designated, if no significant information or changes in the

action occur that would alter the content of the opinion.

Designation of critical habitat focuses on the primary constituent

elements within the defined units and their contribution to the

species' recovery, based on consideration of the species' biological

needs and factors that contribute to recovery (e.g., distribution,

numbers, reproduction, and viability). The evaluation of actions that

may affect critical habitat for the Lost River and/or shortnose sucker

would consider the effects of the action on any of the factors that

were the basis for determining the habitat to be critical. These

include the primary constituent elements of water, physical habitat,

and biological environment, including the ability of an area currently

lacking these elements to provide them in the future, as well as the

contribution of the critical habitat unit to recovery.

Individual critical habitat units would be part of a habitat

network essential to maintaining stable and well distributed

populations over the ranges of both species. Section 7 analysis of

activities affecting sucker critical habitat would consider impacts to

individual critical habitat units, as well as the entire area

designated. The Service, in its review of an action, would base its

biological opinion relative to the adverse modification standard first

on the critical habitat unit and then on the entire area designated.

For species where multiple critical habitat units are designated,

each unit has both a local role and a rangewide role in contributing to

the conservation of the species. The loss of a single unit may not

jeopardize the continued existence of the species, but may

significantly reduce the ability of critical habitat to contribute to

recovery. In some cases, the destruction of a proposed critical habitat

unit could result in the loss of an entire population, which could

preclude recovery or reduce the likelihood of survival of the species.

The critical habitat units in the proposed rule include the areas known

to be important to recovery as described in the recovery plan to the

majority of the known populations of Lost River and shortnose suckers.

Each proposed critical habitat unit is related to and, in some

cases, dependent upon, adjacent units. For example, impacts to one unit

may have an effect on other units downstream of that unit. The gradual

degradation of an upstream critical habitat unit to the point where it

no longer fulfills the overall function for which it was proposed may

diminish the survival and recovery of the species because of effects on

downstream units.

Present conditions vary among proposed units such that some areas

may be less able to sustain continuing impacts than others at any given

time. The level of disturbance a critical habitat unit could withstand

and still fulfill its intended purpose is variable throughout the

species' range and would need to be reviewed in the context of its

current status, condition, and location. Each Federal action would

require review as to its impacts at both the unit and species range

level. When determining whether or not any particular action would

appreciably diminish the value of the habitat for the survival and

recovery of the species, the baseline condition and expected roles for

both the individual critical habitat unit and connected nearby units

must be considered. Under this proposal, the Service's analysis would

consider the indirect effects on critical habitat from actions planned

outside the designated area. Analysis of impacts to individual units

would consider the effects on the local area (both the unit and nearby

connected units), as well as the impacts to the entire complex of

critical habitat units.

Examples of Proposed Actions

Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires, for any proposed or final

regulation to designate critical habitat, a brief description and

evaluation of those activities (public or private) that may adversely

modify such habitat or may be affected by such designation. Several

activities, depending on the season of occurrence and the scale of the

project, may result in the destruction or adverse modification of the

proposed critical habitat without necessarily jeopardizing the

continued existence of the Lost River and/or shortnose suckers.

Examples include, but are not limited to: Timber harvest; forest

management; Federal farm loan programs; flood control; lease land

farming activities on refuge lands; road construction and

refurbishment; hydroelectric facilities management; livestock grazing

activities; irrigation delivery programs; agricultural activities;

urban water and sewage management; ecosystem restoration activities;

wetland filling activities; pipeline construction activities; and

development.

Section 7 consultation on critical habitat would be required if a

given Federal agency action may affect, directly or indirectly, any of

the primary constituent elements. The Service would consider the effect

of the proposed action on the primary constituent elements along with

the reasons why the particular critical habitat unit was designated.

Actions physically located outside of critical habitat that may affect

one or more of the primary constituent elements such as through

increases in sedimentation, nutrient transport, impacts to timing and

quantity of streamflow, and by other means, could indirectly result in

destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat, and would

require consultation. Federal agencies would consult on actions that

may affect the water quality, streambank stability, sedimentation

rates, nutrient dynamics, floodplain structure or function, or aquatic

habitat complexity of the following areas: (1) The Sprague/Sycan

watershed above the Sprague River confluence with the Williamson River;

(2) the Willow Creek and Boles Creek watersheds tributary to Clear Lake

Reservoir; (3) the Gerber watershed tributary to Gerber Reservoir; (4)

the west side tributaries to Upper Klamath Lake; and, (5) the Wood

River watershed and tributaries. These consultations would be required

because of the indirect effects of actions on downstream critical

habitat units. Designation of critical habitat as proposed would likely

add incrementally to the consultation workload that already exists by

virtue of the listed status of the suckers primarily due to the

inclusion in the designation of areas that are not currently occupied

by the species but could provide suitable recovery habitat.

Although the current condition of these sub-basins suggests that

minor activities (e.g., individual timber sales, grazing allotments, or

road construction projects) may adversely affect downstream critical

habitat, this may not always be the case. As recovery plan or other

restoration activities bring about improvements in the amount,

distribution, and quality of sucker habitat through watershed

improvement, the resilience of the ecosystems that suckers depend upon

should increase. These improvements should increase the ability of the

watershed to ameliorate disturbances imposed by human activities, such

that minor actions might no longer adversely affect critical habitat

(see Biological Support Document).

Land Ownership

The proposed critical habitat includes lands of Federal, State, and

private ownership as determined from BLM 1:100,000 surface or minerals

management maps of the Basin. Federal lands and facilities (e.g., dams,

canals, reservoirs) within the proposed designation include those owned

and managed by Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of

Reclamation, and Fish and Wildlife Service. The biological support

document describes in greater detail the land ownership of each

proposed critical habitat unit. While many structural facilities fall

within the boundaries of the proposed critical habitat, they would be

affected by the critical habitat designation only to the extent that

they provide a primary constituent element essential to the species, or

that they affect the ability of an area to provide a primary

constituent element.

Several reservoirs, or portions thereof, are included in the

proposed critical habitat designation. The proposal would cover all

areas contained within the reservoir shorelines at the full-pool

elevation (the water surface elevation at full capacity). The

reservoir's physical features such as shoreline vegetation, spring

inflows, deep spots, and areas of vegetation that, when covered by

water, can provide spawning, rearing, feeding or other habitat

components, can provide important elements of sucker habitat. By

establishing the upper boundary at the full pool elevation, all

physical habitats within the reservoir would be included as critical

habitat regardless of the water elevation at any given time. This does

not mean, however, that the reservoir is required to be continuously

maintained at the full pool elevation.

Included within the proposed designation are some lands falling

within the boundaries of Fish and Wildlife Service National Wildlife

Refuges (refuge lands). Critical habitat is defined as areas which are

essential to the conservation of the species and require special

management considerations or protection (section 3(5)(A)). Most of the

refuge lands in the Klamath Basin are currently managed to provide the

primary constituent elements of critical habitat, or do not provide

suitable sucker habitat, and so are not included in this proposed

designation. However, water levels on some refuge lands that provide

suitable sucker habitat are dependent on either irrigation return

flows, water stored for irrigation delivery, or available water after

existing water rights for agricultural uses on the Klamath Project have

been met (USFWS 1989, USFWS 1991, USBR 1992). The management of water

on these lands, and thus the ability to manage refuge lands for the

primary constituent elements on the Upper Klamath Marsh and Hank's

Marsh Refuges, is entirely dependent upon reservoir management as

determined by the Bureau of Reclamation (J. Hainline, USFWS Klamath

Refuge Complex, pers. comm., 1994). Similarly, lake levels and volumes

at Clear Lake and Tule Lake Refuges are under the control of the Bureau

of Reclamation, and the Refuges have neither significant water rights

nor water delivery contracts with Reclamation in order to provide for

the needs of the suckers (J. Hainline, USFWS Klamath Refuge Complex,

pers. comm., 1994). Therefore, these lands are appropriate to include

in this proposed critical habitat rule. Prior to making a final

decision on this proposal, the Service will assess the need to include

all lands within the 100-year FEMA floodplain and may reduce the

acreage of refuge and other lands included as critical habitat in the

final rule. These refuge lands are identified in the Recovery Plan as

being crucial to the sucker's survival and recovery (USFWS 1993).

Some State and private lands and waters are included within the

proposed designation of critical habitat. The designation of State and

private lands as critical habitat would not affect landowners in the

absence of a Federal action. However, any Federal actions authorized,

funded, or carried out by a Federal agency that may affect critical

habitat on such lands would necessitate consultation by the action

agency. Due to the limited extent of Federal involvement, the Service

expects that relatively few formal section 7 consultations would be

initiated for actions on these lands as a result of critical habitat

designation.

Should a Federal action occur on State or private land, the Federal

agency carrying out the action would be responsible for consulting with

the Service if the action might affect critical habitat.

Consideration of Economic and Other Factors

Introduction

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires consideration of economic and

other relevant impacts in determining whether to exclude areas from

critical habitat. Areas may be excluded from critical habitat

designation when the costs or impacts of designation outweigh the

benefits, provided that exclusion will not result in extinction of a

species.

The economic analysis addresses only at the incremental economic

impact of designating critical habitat above and beyond any economic

impacts resulting from the listing of the species. The economic impacts

of listing under the Act cannot be considered. See H.R. Rep. No. 835,

97th Cong., 2d Sess. 19-20 (1982).

An economic analysis was conducted to estimate the economic effects

of the proposed critical habitat designation. The Service contracted

ECO Northwest, of Eugene, Oregon, to conduct an economic analysis and

assist with the collection of data relevant to analyzing the economic

impacts designation of critical habitat would have. The report by ECO

Northwest, which follows the methodology described in ECO Northwest

(1994), is available from the Service's Portland Field Office (see

ADDRESSES section above). The Service is soliciting comments on the

draft economic analysis report.

To collect the information used in the economic analysis, the

Service developed a questionnaire which was sent to each Federal agency

operating in the Upper Klamath Basin. The questionnaire assisted both

the Federal agencies and the Service in collecting the information that

could be used in developing an economic analysis for this critical

habitat proposal. The questionnaire requested information that was

already in existence or readily available in agency planning documents

or associated environmental impact statements (EIS), if any. The

completed questionnaires provided an approximation of the economic

impacts of the proposed designation, although predictable inaccuracies

in the agency responses existed due to the lack of details about where

critical habitat would be designated, how consultations on critical

habitat would be conducted, and the kinds of agency actions that would

require consultation.

The questionnaires sent to land management agencies (such as the

Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management) asked the agencies to

select an option or alternative from their most recent land or resource

management plan or EIS to correspond to each of three scenarios: (1)

The level of agency activity and associated economic values that

occurred in the period prior to the listing of the Lost River and

shortnose sucker as endangered in July of 1988, called the ``historical

scenario''; (2) the level of agency activity and associated economic

values that occurred during the period after the suckers were listed

that reflects the agency's response to that listing through section 7

consultations, called the ``listing scenario''; and, (3) the level of

agency activity and associated economic values that could reasonably be

expected to occur if critical habitat were designated such that the

actions of the agency might affect critical habitat, called the

``critical habitat scenario''. Given the role critical habitat plays in

recovery of listed species (see discussion of Role of Critical Habitat

in Species Recovery, above) and in consideration of the fact that the

proposed critical habitat rule was not available to guide the agencies

in selecting these options from their plan, the Service asked the

agencies to use the Lost River and Shortnose Sucker Recovery Plan as a

proxy for a proposed critical habitat rule.

The questionnaires developed for the agencies that do not manage

lands, per se, were similar to those developed for the land management

agencies except that they did not request the agencies to select

options or alternatives from land or resource management plans. The

Service indicated to these agencies that, for the purposes of the

survey, they should assume that the critical habitat scenario was

analogous to the full implementation of the recovery plan. Further, the

Service indicated that the intent and function of the recovery plan was

such that implementation of the plan would likely result in the

following:

(1) Improvements in the condition and extent of riparian vegetation

for Upper Klamath Basin streams and rivers.

(2) Increases in the extent and connectivity of riparian and lake

associated wetland areas.

(3) Re-establishment of functional aspects of floodplains in Upper

Klamath Basin streams and rivers.

(4) Improvements in water quality in both lake and stream

environments.

(5) Gradual return to more natural or historic hydrographs for

basin streams and rivers, which would likely result in lowering of

average peak run-off flows, and a general increase in summertime

baseflows.

(6) Establishment of healthy and stable refugial sucker

populations.

The questionnaires also served to identify areas in the Upper

Klamath Basin where the agencies carried out actions and asked

questions designed to assess the quantity and economic value of the

market and non-market goods and services provided by the agencies under

the three scenarios. The potential economic impacts of recent planning

efforts that have resulted in proposed changes in the management of

Federal lands were also addressed in the questionnaire. These include

the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Alternative 9 for lands

within the range of the Northern Spotted Owl (Alternative 9), PACFISH,

and Rangeland Reform.

Responses to Questionnaires

Table 1 identifies the Federal agencies that received a

questionnaire and a request for information on the potential economic

impacts of this proposed rule. Table 1 also indicates the type of

response, if any, received by either ECO Northwest or the Service.

Table 1.--The Responses of Federal Agencies That Received Questionnaires

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

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

Agency.............................................. Response.

BLM, KFRA, Lakeview, OR\1\.......................... Economic Info Provided.

BLM, Ukiah, CA...................................... Economic Info Provided.

BLM, Alturas, CA.................................... Economic Info Provided/No Impact.

BR, Klamath Proj., Klamath Falls, OR................ Economic Info Provided.

FS, Fremont Nat. Forest, Lakeview, OR............... Economic Info Provided.

FS, Winema Nat. Forest, Klamath Falls, OR........... Economic Info Provided.

FmHA, Portland, OR.................................. Economic Info Provided/Partial Response.

FS, Klamath Nat. Forest, Yreka, CA.................. No Impact.

NPS, Tule Lake, CA.................................. No Impact.

ACE, Sacramento, CA................................. Survey Was Not Received.

ASCS, Klamath Falls, OR............................. None.

EPA, Seattle, WA.................................... None.

FERC, San Francisco, CA............................. None.

FERC, Washington, D.C............................... None.

FS, Modoc Nat. Forest, Alturas, CA.................. None.

NPS, Crater Lake, OR................................ None.

SCS, Klamath Falls, OR.............................. None.

FWS, Klamath Refuge Complex, Tulelake, CA........... None.\2\

ACE, Portland, OR................................... Survey Returned, No Economic Info.

FmHA, Klamath Falls, OR............................. Survey Returned, No Economic Info.

FWS, Klamath Fisheries Resource Office, Yreka, CA... Survey Returned, No Economic Info.

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

\1\The Klamath Falls Resource Area responded for Lakeview District, Oregon, and for Ukiah District, California.

\2\The questionnaire sent to FWS, Klamath Refuge Complex, required data from Bureau of Reclamation, Klamath

Project. This information was not made available in time for a response from the Klamath Refuge Complex.

Abbreviations, Department of Agriculture: ASCS=Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service;

FmHA=Farmers Home Administration; FS=Forest Service; SCS=Soil Conservation Service. Department of Interior:

BLM=Bureau of Land Management; BLM, KFRA=BLM, Klamath Falls Resource Area of Lakeview District; BR=Bureau of

Reclamation; FWS=Fish and Wildlife Service; NPS=National Park Service. Other: ACE=Army Corps of Engineers;

EPA=Environmental Protection Agency; FERC=Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Table 2 shows the general characteristics of the responses of the

agencies that supplied economic information in their response to the

questionnaire and that indicated that the proposed critical habitat

designation would affect their activities. Most agencies listed in

Table 1 as not providing a response indicated that they would be

commenting on the proposed rule during the 60-day comment period and

cited workload constraints as the reason for not providing a response

during the questionnaire process.

Table 2.--Responses of Federal Agencies That Provided Economic Information.

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

Agency Impact of Species Listing Impact of Critical Habitat

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

BLM, KFRA, Lakeview, OR\1\.................................................... Negative...................... Negative.

BR, Klamath Project, Klamath Falls, OR........................................ Negative...................... No Additional Impact.

FS, Fremont National Forest, Lakeview, OR..................................... Negative...................... No Additional Impact.

FS, Winema National Forest, Klamath Falls, OR................................. No Impact..................... Negative.

FmHA, Portland, OR............................................................ No Impact..................... Negative.

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

\1\The Klamath Falls Resource Area responded for the Lakeview District, Oregon, and for the Ukiah District, California.

Abbreviations, Department of Agriculture: FmHA=Farmers Home Administration; FS=Forest Service. Department of Interior: BLM=Bureau of Land Management;

BLM, KFRA=BLM, Klamath Falls Resource Area of Lakeview District; BR=Bureau of Reclamation.

In developing the questionnaires, the Service realized that

potential shortcomings in the questionnaire process were likely to

affect the quality of the resulting data. Specifically, the Service

recognized that requesting agencies to select an alternative from a

planning document to correspond to any one of the three scenarios

described above would necessarily limit and influence the scope of the

agency's actions and the associated economic values. Similarly, using

the recovery plan as a model for critical habitat in the absence of a

proposed rule did not provide accurate estimates of the extent and

distribution of critical habitat and would not result in completely

accurate information on how section 7 consultations on critical habitat

would affect agency activities. In spite of these limitations, the

economic analysis will facilitate the public review process by

providing an indication of the potential economic impacts of

designating critical habitat for the Lost River and shortnose suckers.

Responses regarding whether a particular effect would be attributed

to the listing or proposed designation reflected divergent agency

perspectives. This was apparent in the discrepancies between agency

responses as shown in the second and third columns of Table 2, where

agencies with similar lands and actions reached very different

conclusions about the relative impacts of the listing and critical

habitat scenarios. The types of actions that may have been erroneously

applied to the critical habitat scenario would include those occurring

since the listing that may affect the suckers but that have not gone

through section 7 consultation. In such cases, these economic impacts

belong at least partially in the listing scenario and so would reduce

total impacts (whether positive or negative) attributed to the critical

habitat scenario.

The Service analyzed the questionnaire responses to identify any

instances where the responding agency may have incorrectly attributed

impacts to the wrong category (such as placing a critical habitat

impact in the listing category). The Service identified two cases where

an agency apparently erred in determining the scale of impact or where

impacts were inappropriately attributed to a scenario other than that

in which they belonged. In both cases, the Service concluded that the

data presented do not accurately reflect the impacts attributable

solely to the proposed critical habitat, separate from the impacts

attributable to the listing and other factors. Consequently, the draft

economic study reports the data provided by all agencies, but does not

integrate the data of concern from the two agencies into the analysis

of the economic effects of the proposed rule. The Service will work

with these agencies in order to include their data in the final

economic analysis.

Economic Analysis Methodology

The following discussion is a brief overview of the methods used to

conduct the economic analysis. Additional details are contained in the

economic report.

The economic analysis consists of five parts. The first is a

description of the local and regional economies and particularly of

those elements of these economies that would be affected by the

proposed designation. The second is a description of the impacts of the

proposed designation on the activities of Federal agencies and of the

resulting change in the level and price of each good and service

produced from Federal lands or authorized or funded by Federal

agencies. The third is a static estimate of the impacts on the local

economy, assuming that labor and other inputs are immobile across

industries and space. The fourth is an assessment of the long-run

effects of the proposed designation and a description of the path

different elements of the local economy are likely to follow as they

make the transition from the short-run to the long-run. The fifth is an

assessment of the proposed designation's overall effects on national

economic welfare and economic fairness.

Results of the Economic Analysis

The proposed designation would restrict the ability of Federal

agencies to engage in activities, or to support the activities of

others, that would adversely modify or destroy the designated critical

habitat. This restriction would have multiple, complex economic effects

at the local, regional, and national levels. In addition to restricting

those who otherwise would be engaged in habitat-degrading activities,

the designation also would affect those who no longer would experience

spillover effects from habitat degradation, those who would experience

a change in the local quality of life, and those who would experience

an increase in the intrinsic value they place on the suckers.

The major Federal resource-management agencies in the Upper Klamath

Basin generally indicated in their questionnaire responses that they

must change their activities to afford protection to the suckers, but

they have reached different conclusions about whether these changes are

prompted by the listing, the critical habitat designation, or both.

BLM-Klamath Falls was the only agency to indicate that it must alter

its activities in response to the listing and make additional changes

in response to the designation. The Winema National Forest and Farmers

Home Administration (FmHA) indicated that they did not change their

activities in response to the listing but would have to change them in

response to the designation, although FmHA did not provide any

substantiation. The Bureau of Reclamation (Klamath Project) and the

Fremont National Forest indicated they changed their activities in

response to the listing but would make no further changes in response

to the designation. BLM-Alturas indicated that its activities would not

be affected by either the listing or the designation.

The data reported by some agencies may overstate the impacts

attributable to the proposed designation. For example, the Winema

National Forest indicated that potential reductions in the production

of cattle grazing and firewood from its lands due to critical habitat

designation would likely be subsumed by the adoption of PACFISH.

Similarly, BLM-Klamath Falls indicated that the impact on the

production of cattle grazing on its lands would be subsumed by the

adoption of Option 9 for management of spotted-owl forests and by the

implementation of rangeland-reform proposals.

These preliminary economic findings reflect the Service's

determination that further clarification is needed regarding (a) all of

the data in the response from the Winema National Forest, and (b) the

data related to fishing, boating, and camping at Gerber Reservoir in

the response from the BLM's Klamath Falls Resource Area.

Table 3 presents a static estimate of the potential impact on local

employment associated with the change in output of goods and services

attributed to the proposed designation by the resource-management

agencies (exclusive of the data requiring clarification as described

above). This estimate represents the maximum potential effect on local

employment and would occur only if there were no intra- or

interindustry factor substitution or mobility. To the extent that

employers were successful in responding to the reduction in the output

of a good or service by developing new products or new markets, the

impact on local employment would be less. Assuming that none of the

affected employers would be successful, the change in output would

cause approximately 63 workers to lose jobs they would have had, but

for the designation, in the local economy as it is currently

constituted. Nearly all of these would be tied to the indicated

reductions in the output of timber.

Table 3.--Static Estimate of the Potential Impact on Local Employment

From the Change in Output of Goods and Services From Federal Lands, by

Drainage Basins\1\

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

Gerber Klamath

Goods and impacts Reservoir River\2\ Total

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

Non-Market Goods, Recreation........... +2 -4 -2

Market Goods:

Timber............................. 0 -61 -61

Grazing............................ -1 -1 -2

Firewood........................... 0 0 0

Christmas Trees.................... 0 0 0

Recreation......................... 0 +2 +2

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

Total Initial Impact on Employment... +1 -64 -63

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

\1\Preliminary estimate. Total (direct, indirect, and induced) change in

employment in Klamath County assuming no intraindustry or

interindustry factor substitution or mobility, exclusive of Winema

National Forest, subject to clarification during the public comment

period of data provided by the Winema National Forest. Exclusive of

fishing, boating, and camping impacts at Gerber Reservoir, pending

clarification during the public comment period of data provided by the

BLM Klamath Falls, Resource Area.

\2\Klamath River and tributaries below Link River Dam and above Iron

Gate Dam, excluding Jenny Creek drainage basin.

These potential changes would occur within the context of economic

growth at the local and regional level. Much of this growth is

attributable to the immigration of workers and households, and recent

survey research indicates that much of the immigration is motivated by

a desire to take advantage of the local and regional quality of life.

The quality-of-life attributes associated with proximity to natural-

resource amenities seem especially important as the basis for current

growth trends. To the extent that the designation enhances these

amenities, it will facilitate the local economy's adjustment to the

reduction in timber output.

The potential impact on the timber and agricultural industries is

unlikely to have a discernible impact on commodity prices or

production. Commodity and capital markets will adjust to the proposed

designation quickly and they probably already have begun to do so. The

adjustment will be less facile for local dislocated workers whose

employers are unable to respond successfully to the reduced output of

goods and services from Federal lands.

In general, dislocation of workers in the local resource extraction

industries would be offset, in the long run, by the creation of

additional jobs in other sectors locally or in other areas. The

national adjustment to the proposed designation would be essentially

imperceptible as the U.S. economy redeployed labor and other resources

that might become unemployed because of the designation. As buyers,

sellers, workers, firms, households, and communities adjusted to the

proposed designation, its economic impacts would be spread over a broad

economic and spatial landscape.

It cannot be concluded, a priori, that the value of the bundle of

goods and services available to society with the proposed designation

is larger or smaller than the value of the bundle without it. To

quantify fully the amount and value of each good and service in each of

the two bundles requires an extensive and detailed analysis of the

short-run, transition, and long-run effects. Whether the designation

would yield net benefits or net costs has not been finally determined,

but it appears that the effect would be close to zero in either case.

Available Conservation Measures

The purpose of the Act, as stated in section 2(b), is to provide a

means to conserve the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened

species depend and to provide a program for the conservation of listed

species. Section 2(c)(1) of the Act declares that ``* * * all Federal

departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered and

threatened species and shall utilize their authorities in furtherance

of the purposes of this Act''.

The Act mandates the conservation of listed species through various

mechanisms, such as: Section 7 (requiring Federal agencies to further

the purposes of the Act by carrying out conservation programs and

insuring that Federal actions will not likely jeopardize the continued

existence of the listed species or result in the destruction or adverse

modification of critical habitat); section 9 (prohibition of taking of

listed species); section 10 (research permits and habitat conservation

plans); section 6 (co-operative State and Federal grants); land

acquisition; and research. The section 7 requirement that Federal

agencies consult with the Service if their actions may impact critical

habitat enables the Service to assess Federal activities that may

impair survival and recovery potential, thus ensuring that such actions

are considered in relation to the goals and recommendations of the

recovery plan.

Public Comments Solicited

The Service intends that any final action resulting from this

proposal will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore,

comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned government

agencies, Indian Nations, the scientific community, commercial

interests, or any other interested party concerning this proposed rule

are hereby solicited. Comments are particularly sought concerning:

(1) The reasons why any Federal lands (either proposed critical

habitat or additional areas) should or should not be determined to be

critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act;

(2) The location and reasons why any non-Federal lands should or

should not be determined to be critical habitat as provided by section

4 of the Act;

(3) Current and planned activities in or upstream of proposed

critical habitat areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical

habitat;

(4) Other physical and biological features that are essential to

the conservation of the species and in need of special management or

protection;

(5) Specific information on the scale, location, and distribution

of primary constituent elements on all ownerships and land

designations;

(6) Information concerning health of the ecosystems on which the

Lost River and/or shortnose sucker depend;

(8) Information on the economic benefits and costs that would

result from this proposed designation of critical habitat;

(9) Data and information relevant to determining whether the

benefits of excluding a particular area from critical habitat outweigh

the benefits of specifying the area as critical habitat;

(10) The methods the Service might use in determining whether the

costs of designating an area outweigh the benefits of designation;

(11) Methods of analysis useful in evaluating economic and other

relevant impacts;

(12) Information regarding the suitability or unsuitability as

critical habitat boundaries of the 100-year flood plain (as defined on

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps

(FIRM's)), or of the 300-foot widths as riparian critical habitat

boundaries, modeled after Riparian Reserves as discussed in the Report

of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team.

(13) Information about areas of land or water located within the

outer boundaries of the proposed critical habitat, but that do not

provide primary constituent elements and can thus be excluded. Of

particular interest are means to describe these areas of land with

specific limits using reference points and lines as found on standard

topographic maps.

The final decision on this proposal will take into consideration

the comments and any additional information received by the Service,

and such communications may lead to a final regulation that differs

from this proposal.

Public Hearings

The Act provides for at least one public hearing on this proposal,

if requested by January 17, 1995. Requests for a hearing must be made

in writing and addressed to the Field Supervisor, Portland Field Office

(see ADDRESSES section).

National Environmental Policy Act

The Service has determined that an Environmental Assessment, as

defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of

1969, need not be prepared in connection with regulations adopted

pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. A notice outlining the Service's

reasons for this determination was published in the Federal Register on

October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Required Determinations

This proposed rule was reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The

rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial

number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.

601 et seq.). Based on the information discussed in this rule

concerning public projects and private activities within the proposed

critical habitat, significant economic impacts will not result from

this action. Also, no direct costs, enforcement costs, information

collection, or recordkeeping requirements are imposed on small entities

by this action, and the rule contains no recordkeeping requirements as

defined under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et

seq.). This rule does not require a Federalism assessment under

Executive Order 12612 because it would not have any significant

federalism effects as described in the order.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon

request from the Field Supervisor, Portland Field Office (see ADDRESSES

section).

Authors: The primary authors of this proposal are Rollie White

of the Service's Portland Field Office and Kevin Stubbs of the

Service's Sacramento Field Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, the Service hereby proposes to amend part 17,

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations,

as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.

4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.

2. Section 17.11(h) is amended by revising ``NA'' in the ``Critical

habitat'' column in the table entries for ``Sucker, Lost River'' and

``Sucker, shortnose'', under FISHES, to read ``17.95(e)'' and

``17.95(e)'', respectively.

3. Section 17.95(e) is amended by adding critical habitat for the

Lost River Sucker (Deltistes luxatus) and Shortnose Sucker (Chasmistes

brevirostris), in the same alphabetical order as they appear in

17.11(h), to read as follows:

Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *

(e) Fishes.

* * * * *

Lost River Sucker (Deltistes luxatus)

(1) Clear Lake and Watershed, Modoc County, California (Mt.

Diablo Meridian), and Klamath and Lake Counties, Oregon (Willamette

Meridian). Within the following sections, all portions lying within

the 100-year floodplain as depicted by the Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain Zone A identified on

Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Community Panels, effective date

September 24, 1984; or, in the absence of an applicable FIRM panel,

within 300 feet of said body of water. The specific panel map number

is shown in parentheses.

Mt. Diablo Meridian

T 46 N, R 11 E.,

Secs. 1-4, 7-9, 17-20, 29, 30 (060192-0275 B).

T 46 N, R 10 E.,

Secs. 13, 23, 24, 26, 34, 35 (060192-0275 B and 060192-0450 B).

T 45 N, R 10 E.,

Secs. 3-5, 8, 9, 16-20, 29, 30 (060192-0425 B and 060192-0450

B).

T 45 N, R 9 E.,

Secs. 4, 5, 9-16, 23-25 (060192-0425 B).

T 46 N, R 9 E.,

Secs. 18, 19, 29, 30, 32, 33 (060192-0250 B and 060192-0425 B).

T 46 N, R 8 E.,

Secs. 1, 5-9, 12, 13, 16, 17 (060192-0250 B) including only

those portions of the listed sections occurring within Clear Lake

reservoir at full pool elevation.

T 48 N, R 10 E.,

Secs. 22, 27, 28, 31-34 (060192-0075 B and 060192-0100 B); secs.

22, 27 and 33, North Fork Willow Creek, and secs. 31 and 32,

Wildhorse Creek.

T 47 N, R 10 E.,

Secs. 3-8, 18 (060192-0075 B, 060192-0250 B, 060192-0275 B and

060192-0100 B); and secs. 5, 7 and 18, North Fork Willow Creek; and

secs. 5 and 6, Wildhorse Creek.

T 47 N, R 9 E.,

Secs. 1, 5-9, 12-16, 18 (060192-0075 B and 060192-0250 B); and

secs. 13 and 14, North Fork Willow Creek; and secs. 1, 12 and 13,

Fourmile Creek.

T 47 N, R 8 E.,

Secs. 8, 12, 13, 17, 18, 20-25, 28, 29, 31, 32, 36 (060192-0075

B and 060192-0250 B); and including only those portions of the

listed sections occurring within Clear Lake reservoir at full pool

elevation.

T 48 N, R 9 E.,

Secs. 26, 35, and 36, Fourmile Creek.

T 46 N, R 7 E.,

Secs. 2, 3, 6-8, 11-13, 16, 17, 21-24, 26, 27, lying within

Clear Lake reservoir at full pool elevation.

T 47 N, R 7 E.,

Secs. 11, 13, 14, 19-23, 26, 27, 30, 31, 34-36, lying within

Clear Lake reservoir at full pool elevation.

T 47 N, R 6 E.,

Secs. 24 and 25, lying within Clear Lake reservoir at full pool

elevation.

Willamette Meridian

T 41 S, R 16 E.,

Secs. 13, 14, and 22-24, North Fork Willow Creek.

T 41 S, R 17 E.,

Secs. 17 and 18, North Fork Willow Creek.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

TP01DE94.002

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

(2) Tule Lake, Siskiyou and Modoc Counties, California (Mt.

Diablo Meridian), and Klamath County, Oregon (Willamette Meridian).

Within the following sections, all portions lying within the 100-

year floodplain as depicted by the Federal Emergency Management

Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain Zone A identified on Flood

Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Community Panels, effective date May 17,

1982, or December 18, 1984, whichever is applicable. The specific

panel map number is shown in parentheses.

Mt. Diablo Meridian

T 46 N, R 5 E.,

Secs. 5-9, 16, 17 (060192-0200 B).

T 46 N, R 4 E.,

Secs. 1-3, 11, 12 (060362-0500 B).

T 47 N, R 4 E.,

Secs. 3-5, 8-10, 15-22, 27-30, 32-34 (060362-0500 B and 060362-

0250 B).

T 48 N, R 4 E.,

Secs. 16, 21, 22, 27, 33, 34 (060362-0250 B).

Willamette Meridian

T 41 S, R 11 E.,

Secs. 7-9, 16 (410109-1400 B); including only those portions of

sec. 7 downstream of Anderson-Rose Dam, and those portions of listed

sections inside the top of the Lost River dike.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

TP01DE94.003

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

(3) Klamath River, Klamath County, Oregon (Willamette Meridian),

and Siskiyou County, California (Mt. Diablo Meridian). Within the

following sections, all portions lying within the 100-year

floodplain as depicted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA) 100-year floodplain Zone A identified on Flood Insurance Rate

Map (FIRM) Community Panels with effective dates of June 5, 1985;

December 18, 1984; or May 17, 1982, whichever is applicable; or, in

the absence of an applicable FIRM panel, within 300 feet of said

body of water. The specific panel map number is shown in

parentheses.

Willamette Meridian

T 38 S, R 9 E.,

Secs. 30-32 (410112-0005 B); and lying within Upper Klamath Lake

reservoir at full pool elevation.

T 39 S, R 9 E.,

Secs. 4, 5, 8, 9, 17-19, 30 (6410112-009 B and 6410112-1205 B).

T 40 S, R 8 E.,

Secs. 1-3, 5, 6, 8-12, 14-16 (410109-1195 B and 410109-1350 B).

T 39 S, R 8 E.,

Secs. 23-27, 31, 34-36 (410109-1195 B and 410109-1215 B).

T 39 S, R 7 E.,

Secs. 21, 26-32, 35, 36 (410109-1195 B and 410109-1200 B).

T 40 S, R 7 E.,

Sec. 6 (410109-1200 B and 410109-1350 B).

T 40 S, R 6 E.,

Secs. 1, 12-14, 23, 26, 34, 35 (410109-1325 B and 410109-1350

B).

T 41 S, R 6 E.,

Secs. 3, 7-10, 18, (410109-1350 B) Klamath River.

T 41 S, R 5 E.,

Secs. 12 and 13, Klamath River.

Mt. Diablo Meridian

T 48 N, R 3 W.,

Secs. 13-15, 22, 27, 28, 32, 33 (060363-0175 B).

T 48 N, R 4 W.,

Secs. 21, 27-31, 34-36 (060363-0175 B and 060363-150 B).

T 48 N, R 5 W.,

Secs. 26, 32-36 (060363-150 B).

T 47 N, R 5 W.,

Secs. 4, 9, 10 (060363-150 B).

T 40 S, R 7 E.,

Sec. 6 (410109-1200 B and 410109-1350 B).

T 40 S, R 6 E.,

Secs. 1, 12-14, 23, 26, 34, 35 (410109-1325 B and 410109-1350

B).

T 41 S, R 6 E.,

Secs. 3, 7-10, 18, (410109-1350 B) Klamath River.

T 41 S, R 5 E.,

Secs. 12 and 13, Klamath River.

Mt. Diablo Meridian

T 48 N, R 3 W.,

Secs. 13-15, 22, 27, 28, 32, 33 (060363-0175 B).

T 48 N, R 4 W.,

Secs. 21, 27-31, 34-36 (060363-0175 B and 060363-150 B).

T 48 N, R 5 W.,

Secs. 26, 32-36 (060363-150 B).

T 47 N, R 5 W.,

Secs. 4, 9, 10 (060363-150 B).

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

TP01DE94.004

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

(4) Upper Klamath Lake, Klamath County, Oregon (Willamette

Meridian). Within the following sections, all portions lying within

the 100-year floodplain as depicted by the Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain Zone A identified on

Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Community Panels, effective date May

17, 1982, or December 18, 1984, whichever is applicable; or, in the

absence of an applicable FIRM panel, within 300 feet of said body of

water. The specific panel map number is shown in parentheses.

T 38 S, R 8 E.,

Secs. 1, 3, 4, 6, 10-14, 23, 25 lying within Upper Klamath Lake

reservoir at full pool elevation.

T 38 S, R 7 E.,

Sec. 1 lying within Upper Klamath Lake reservoir at full pool

elevation.

T 37 S, R 8 E.,

Secs. 1, 6-8, 12, 13, 17-19, 24-26, 28, 29, 31-33, 35-37, lying

within Upper Klamath Lake reservoir at full pool elevation.

T 37 S, R 9 E.,

Sec. 6 lying within Upper Klamath Lake reservoir at full pool

elevation, and within the waters of Hagelstein Park.

T 37 S, R 7 E.,

Secs. 1-3, 24, 25, 36 (410109-1050 B); or lying within Upper

Klamath Lake reservoir at full pool elevation.

T 38 S, R 9 E.,

Secs. 18, 19, 30 lying within Upper Klamath Lake reservoir at

full pool elevation.

T 36 S, R 7\1/2\ E.,

Secs. 2, 3, 11, 12, 18, 19, 21, 23-30, 32-36 (410109-1050 B and

410109-900 B); or lying within Upper Klamath Lake reservoir at full

pool elevation.

T 36 S, R 7 E.,

Secs. 7, 8, 15-17, 22, 23, 25, 26, 36 (410109-1050 B and 410109-

900 B); or lying within Upper Klamath Lake reservoir at full pool

elevation.

T 36 S, R 6 E.,

Secs. 1-4, 8-18, 21, 23, 24, or (410109-870 B, 410109-875 B and

410109-900 B); or lying within Upper Klamath Lake reservoir at full

pool elevation.

T 36 S, R 5 E.,

Secs. 11-13, (410109-870 B) Fourmile Creek.

T 35 S, R 6 E.,

Secs. 1, 2, 11-14, 23-26, 35, 36 (410109-725 B, 410109-750 B,

410109-875 B and 410109-900 B).

T 34 S, R 6 E.,

Secs. 1, 2, 11-14, 24-26, 35, 36 (410109-725 B and 410109-750

B).

T 34 S, R 7\1/2\ E.,

Secs. 1-4, 6, 9-14, 18-36 (410109-750 B and 410109-745 B);

including only those portions of sec. 9 found to the east of the

Wood River.

T 35 S, R 7\1/2\ E.,

Secs. 2-10, 16-21, 24-30, 33, 34 (410109-745 B, 410109-750 B,

410109-885 B, and 410109-900 B).

T 35 S, R 7 E.,

Secs. 6, 7, 18, 19 (410109-745 B and 410109-885 B); or lying

within Upper Klamath Lake reservoir at full pool elevation.

T 34 S, R 7 E.,

Secs. 18 and 31, (410109-745 B) Agency Creek.

T 33 S, R 7\1/2\ E.,

Secs. 3, 10, 15, 22, 23, 26, 27, 34-36, including those portions

of secs. 3, 10, 15, 22, 27 and 34 (410109-600 B and 410109-735 B);

Fort Creek and Crooked Creek.

TP01DE94.005

8BILLING CODE 4310-55-PBILLING CODE 4310-55-C

(5) Williamson/Sprague, Klamath County, Oregon (Willamette

Meridian). Within the following sections, all portions lying within

the 100-year floodplain as depicted by the Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain Zone A identified on

Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Community Panels, effective date

December 18, 1984. The specific panel map number is shown in

parentheses.

T 36 S, R 7\1/2\ E.,

Secs. 1, 2, 11, 12 (410109-885 B and 410109-900 B).

T 35 S, R 7\1/2\ E.,

Sec. 36 (410109-900 B).

T 35 S, R 7 E.,

Secs. 2-4, 9-11, 15, 16, 19-21, 29-31 (410109-745 B and 410109-

885 B); and all portions of Agency Lake.

T 34 S, R 7 E.,

Secs. 25, 35, 36 (410109-745 B).

T 34 S, R 8 E.,

Secs. 14-16, 19-30, 34-36 (410109-745 B, 410109-755 B, and

410109-765 B).

T.35 S, R 8 E.,

Secs. 1, 2, 12 (410109-765 B and 410109-770 B).

T 34 S, R 9 E.,

Secs. 17, 19, 20, 29-32 (410109-760 B, 410109-765 B, and 410109-

770 B).

T 35 S, R 9 E.,

Secs. 4-11, 14, 23, 25, 26, 35, 36 (410109-765 B, 410109-770 B,

and 410109-925 B).

T 35 S, R 10 E.,

Secs. 19, 29-33 (410109-925 B and 410109-930 B).

T 36 S, R 9 E.,

Secs. 1 and 12 (410109-925 B).

T 36 S, R 10 E.,

Secs. 3-14, 19, 24 (410109-925 B, 410109-930 B, and 410109-940

B).

T 36 S, R 11 E.,

Secs. 1, 7-18, 23-25, 36 (410109-930 B, 410109-935 B, 410109-940

B, and 410109-945 B).

T 37 S, R 11 E.,

Sec. 1 (410109-945 B and 410109-1100 B).

T 37 S, R 12 E.,

Secs. 5 and 6 (410109-945 B, 410109-975 B, and 410109-1100 B).

T 36 S, R 12 E.,

Secs. 1-19, 23, 24, 26, 30-33, 35 (410109-935 B, 410109-945 B,

and 410109-975 B).

T 35 S, R 12 E.,

Secs. 33 and 34 (410109-975 B).

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

TP01DE94.006

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

Known constituent elements include water (quality, quantity,

timing of flow), physical habitat (suitable spawning, nursery,

rearing, migratory, and refugial habitats) and biological

environment (food supply, nutrients, competition and predation).

* * * * *

SHORTNOSE SUCKER (Chasmistes brevirostris)

(1) Clear Lake and Watershed, Modoc County, California (Mt.

Diablo Meridian), and Klamath and Lake Counties, Oregon (Willamette

Meridian). Within the following sections, all portions lying within

the 100-year floodplain as depicted by the Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain Zone A identified on

Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Community Panels, effective date

September 24, 1984; or, in the absence of an applicable FIRM panel,

within 300 feet of said body of water. The specific panel map number

is shown in parentheses.

Mt. Diablo Meridian

T 46 N, R 11 E.,

Secs. 1-4, 7-9, 17-20, 29, 30 (060192-0275 B).

T 46 N, R 10 E.,

Secs. 13, 23, 24, 26, 34, 35 (060192-0275 B and 060192-0450 B).

T 45 N, R 10 E.,

Secs. 3-5, 8, 9, 16-20, 29, 30 (060192-0425 B and 060192-0450

B).

T 45 N, R 9 E.,

Secs. 4, 5, 9-16, 23-25 (060192-0425 B).

T 46 N, R 9 E.,

Secs. 18, 19, 29, 30, 32, 33 (060192-0250 B and 060192-0425 B).

T 46 N, R 8 E.,

Secs. 1, 5-9, 12, 13, 16, 17 (060192-0250 B) including only

those portions of the listed sections occurring within Clear Lake

reservoir at full pool elevation.

T 48 N, R 10 E.,

Secs. 22, 27, 28, 31-34 (060192-0075 B and 060192-0100 B);

Secs. 22, 27 and 33, North Fork Willow Creek, and

Secs. 31 and 32, Wildhorse Creek.

T 47 N, R 10 E.,

Secs. 3-8, 18 (060192-0075 B, 060192-0250 B, 060192-0275 B and

060192-0100 B); and

Secs. 5, 7 and 18, North Fork Willow Creek; and

Secs. 5 and 6, Wildhorse Creek.

T 47 N, R 9 E.,

Secs. 1, 5-9, 12-16, 18 (060192-0075 B and 060192-0250 B); and

Secs. 13 and 14, North Fork Willow Creek; and

Secs. 1, 12 and 13, Fourmile Creek.

T 47 N, R 8 E.,

Secs. 8, 12, 13, 17, 18, 20-25, 28, 29, 31, 32, 36 (060192-0075

B and 060192-0250 B); and including only those portions of the

listed sections occurring within Clear Lake reservoir at full pool

elevation.

T 48 N, R 9 E.,

Secs. 26, 35, and 36, Fourmile Creek.

T 46 N, R 7 E.,

Secs. 2, 3, 6-8, 11-13, 16, 17, 21-24, 26, 27, lying within

Clear Lake reservoir at full pool elevation.

T 47 N, R 7 E.,

Secs. 11, 13, 14, 19-23, 26, 27, 30, 31, 34-36, lying within

Clear Lake reservoir at full pool elevation.

T 47 N, R 6 E.,

Secs. 24 and 25, lying within Clear Lake reservoir at full pool

elevation.

Willamette Meridian

T 41 S, R 16 E.,

Secs. 13, 14, and 22-24, North Fork Willow Creek.

T 41 S, R 17 E.,

Secs. 17 and 18, North Fork Willow Creek.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

TP01DE94.007

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

(2) Tule Lake, Siskiyou and Modoc Counties, California (Mt.

Diablo Meridian), and Klamath County, Oregon (Willamette Meridian).

Within the following sections, all portions lying within the 100-

year floodplain as depicted by the Federal Emergency Management

Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain Zone A identified on Flood

Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Community Panels, effective date May 17,

1982, or December 18, 1984, whichever is applicable. The specific

panel map number is shown in parentheses.

Mt. Diablo Meridian

T 46 N, R 5 E.,

Secs. 5-9, 16, 17 (060192-0200 B).

T 46 N, R 4 E.,

Secs. 1-3, 11, 12 (060362-0500 B).

T 47 N, R 4 E.,

Secs. 3-5, 8-10, 15-22, 27-30, 32-34 (060362-0500 B and 060362-

0250 B).

T 48 N, R 4 E.,

Secs. 16, 21, 22, 27, 33, 34 (060362-0250 B).

Willamette Meridian

T 41 S, R 11 E.,

Secs. 7-9, 16 (410109-1400 B); including only those portions of

sec. 7 downstream of Anderson-Rose Dam, and those portions of listed

sections inside the top of the Lost River dike.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

TP01DE94.008

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

(3) Klamath River, Klamath County, Oregon (Willamette Meridian),

and Siskiyou County, California (Mt. Diablo Meridian). Within the

following sections, all portions lying within the 100-year

floodplain as depicted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA) 100-year floodplain Zone A identified on Flood Insurance Rate

Map (FIRM) Community Panels with effective dates of June 5, 1985;

December 18, 1984; or May 17, 1982, whichever is applicable; or, in

the absence of an applicable FIRM panel, within 300 feet of said

body of water. The specific panel map number is shown in

parentheses.

Willamette Meridian

T 38 S, R 9 E.,

Secs. 30-32 (410112-0005 B); and lying within Upper Klamath Lake

reservoir at full pool elevation.

T 39 S, R 9 E.,

Secs. 4, 5, 8, 9, 17-19, 30 (6410112-009 B and 6410112-1205 B).

T 40 S, R 8 E.,

Secs. 1-3, 5, 6, 8-12, 14-16 (410109-1195 B and 410109-1350 B).

T 39 S, R 8 E.,

Secs. 23-27, 31, 34-36 (410109-1195 B and 410109-1215 B).

T 39 S, R 7 E.,

Secs. 21, 26-32, 35, 36 (410109-1195 B and 410109-1200 B).

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

TP01DE94.009

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

(4) Upper Klamath Lake, Klamath County, Oregon (Willamette

Meridian). Within the following sections, all portions lying within

the 100-year floodplain as depicted by the Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain Zone A identified on

Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Community Panels, effective date May

17, 1982, or December 18, 1984, whichever is applicable; or, in the

absence of an applicable FIRM panel, within 300 feet of said body of

water. The specific panel map number is shown in parentheses.

T 38 S, R 8 E.,

Secs. 1, 3, 4, 6, 10-14, 23, 25 lying within Upper Klamath Lake

reservoir at full pool elevation.

T 38 S, R 7 E.,

Sec. 1 lying within Upper Klamath Lake reservoir at full pool

elevation.

T 37 S, R 8 E.,

Secs. 1, 6-8, 12, 13, 17-19, 24-26, 28, 29, 31-33, 35-37, lying

within Upper Klamath Lake reservoir at full pool elevation.

T 37 S, R 9 E.,

Sec. 6 lying within Upper Klamath Lake reservoir at full pool

elevation, and within the waters of Hagelstein Park.

T 37 S, R 7 E.,

Secs. 1-3, 24, 25, 36 (410109-1050 B); or lying within Upper

Klamath Lake reservoir at full pool elevation.

T 38 S, R 9 E.,

Secs. 18, 19, 30 lying within Upper Klamath Lake reservoir at

full pool elevation.

T 36 S, R 7\1/2\ E.,

Secs. 2, 3, 11, 12, 18, 19, 21, 23-30, 32-36 (410109-1050 B and

410109-900 B); or lying within Upper Klamath Lake reservoir at full

pool elevation.

T 36 S, R 7 E.,

Secs. 7, 8, 15-17, 22, 23, 25, 26, 36 (410109-1050 B and 410109-

900 B); or lying within Upper Klamath Lake reservoir at full pool

elevation.

T 36 S, R 6 E.,

Secs. 1-4, 8-18, 21, 23, 24, or (410109-870 B, 410109-875 B and

410109-900 B); or lying within Upper Klamath Lake reservoir at full

pool elevation.

T 36 S, R 5 E.,

Secs. 11-13, (410109-870 B) Fourmile Creek.

T 35 S, R 6 E.,

Secs. 1, 2, 11-14, 23-26, 35, 36 (410109-725 B, 410109-750 B,

410109-875 B and 410109-900 B).

T 34 S, R 6 E.,

Secs. 1, 2, 11-14, 24-26, 35, 36 (410109-725 B and 410109-750

B).

T 34 S, R 7\1/2\ E.,

Secs. 1-4, 6, 9-14, 18-36 (410109-750 B and 410109-745 B);

including only those portions of sec. 9 found to the east of the

Wood River.

T 35 S, R 7\1/2\ E.,

Secs. 2-10, 16-21, 24-30, 33, 34 (410109-745 B, 410109-750 B,

410109-885 B, and 410109-900 B).

T 35 S, R 7 E.,

Secs. 6, 7, 18, 19 (410109-745 B and 410109-885 B); or lying

within Upper Klamath Lake reservoir at full pool elevation.

T 34 S, R 7 E.,

Secs. 18 and 31, (410109-745 B) Agency Creek.

T 33 S, R 7 1/2 E.,

Secs. 3, 10, 15, 22, 23, 26, 27, 34-36, including those portions

of secs. 3, 10, 15, 22, 27 and 34 (410109-600 B and 410109-735 B);

Fort Creek and Crooked Creek.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

TP01DE94.010

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

(5) Williamson/Sprague, Klamath County, Oregon (Willamette

Meridian). Within the following sections, all portions lying within

the 100-year floodplain as depicted by the Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain Zone A identified on

Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Community Panels, effective date

December 18, 1984. The specific panel map number is shown in

parentheses.

T 36 S, R 7 1/2 E.,

Secs. 1, 2, 11, 12 (410109-885 B and 410109-900 B).

T 35 S, R 7 1/2 E.,

Sec. 36 (410109-900 B).

T 35 S, R 7 E.,

Secs. 2-4, 9-11, 15, 16, 19-21, 29-31 (410109-745 B and 410109-

885 B); and all portions of Agency Lake.

T 34 S, R 7 E.,

Secs. 25, 35, 36 (410109-745 B).

T 34 S, R 8 E.,

Secs. 14-16, 19-30, 34-36 (410109-745 B, 410109-755 B, and

410109-765 B).

T 35 S, R 8 E.,

Secs. 1, 2, 12 (410109-765 B and 410109-770 B).

T 34 S, R 9 E.,

Secs. 17, 19, 20, 29-32 (410109-760 B, 410109-765 B, and 410109-

770 B).

T 35 S, R 9 E.,

Secs. 4-11, 14, 23, 25, 26, 35, 36 (410109-765 B, 410109-770 B,

and 410109-925 B).

T 35 S, R 10 E.,

Secs. 19, 29-33 (410109-925 B and 410109-930 B).

T 36 S, R 9 E.,

Secs. 1 and 12 (410109-925 B).

T 36 S, R 10 E.,

Secs. 3-14, 19, 24 (410109-925 B, 410109-930 B, and 410109-940

B).

T 36 S, R 11 E.,

Secs. 1, 7-18, 23-25, 36 (410109-930 B, 410109-935 B, 410109-940

B, and 410109-945 B).

T 37 S, R 11 E.,

Sec. 1 (410109-945 B and 410109-1100 B).

T 37 S, R 12 E.,

Secs. 5 and 6 (410109-945 B, 410109-975 B, and 410109-1100 B).

T 36 S, R 12 E.,

Secs. 1-19, 23, 24, 26, 30-33, 35 (410109-935 B, 410109-945 B,

and 410109-975 B).

T 35 S, R 12 E.,

Secs. 33 and 34 (410109-975 B).

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

TP01DE94.011

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

(6) Gerber Reservoir and Watershed, Klamath County, Oregon

(Willamette Meridian). Within the following sections, all portions

lying within the 100-year floodplain as depicted by the Federal

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain Zone A

identified on Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Community Panels,

effective date May 17, 1982, or December 18, 1984, whichever is

applicable; or, in the absence of an applicable FIRM panel, within

300 feet of said body of water. The specific panel map number is

shown in parentheses.

T 40 S, R 15 E.,

Sec. 6 (410109-1300 B).

T 39 S, R 15 E.,

Secs. 7, 20, 21, 29-31, (410109-1300 B) Long Branch Creek,

Barnes Valley Creek, or Pitchlog Creek.

T 39 S, R 14 E.,

Secs. 5-8, 12, 13, 16-25, 27, 28, 30, 33, 34, 36, lying within

Gerber Reservoir at full pool elevation; Long Branch Creek,

Wildhorse Creek, or Pitchlog Creek.

T 39 S, R 13 E.,

Secs. 1, 2, 12, 13, lying within Gerber Reservoir at full pool

elevation; Ben Hall Creek.

T 38 S, R 13 E.,

Secs. 33-36, lying within Gerber Reservoir at full pool

elevation; Ben Hall Creek.

T 38 S, R 14 E.,

Secs. 17, 19, 20, 30-32 (410109-1125 B, and 410109-1275 B),

lying within Gerber Reservoir at full pool elevation; Barnes Creek.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

TP01DE94.012

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

(7) Known constituent elements include the physical and

biological features that support spawning, foraging, cover, refugia

and corridors between these areas, and growth and dispersal are

essential to the conservation of these species. The primary

constituent elements are a sufficient quantity of water of suitable

quality (i.e., temperature, dissolved oxygen, flow rate, pH,

nutrients, lack of contaminants, turbidity, etc.) to provide

conditions required for the particular life stage for each species;

physical habitat for use as refugia from stressful water quality

conditions or predation, or for use as in spawning, nursery,

feeding, or rearing areas, or as corridors between these areas; and

a biological environment that provides a food supply and a natural

scheme of predation, parasitism, and competition in the biological

environment.

Dated: October 28, 1994.

George T. Frampton,

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

[FR Doc. 94-29406 Filed 11-30-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P