[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
