[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 230 (Thursday, December 1, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-29406]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: December 1, 1994]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part VIII





Department of the Interior





_______________________________________________________________________



Fish and Wildlife Service



_______________________________________________________________________



50 CFR Part 17



Endangered and Threatened Species: Lost River Sucker, etc.; Proposed 
Rule
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AC90

 

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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed Rule.

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

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