Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Lost River Sucker and Shortnose Sucker, 76337-76358 [2011-31380]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 7, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76337-76358]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31380]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2011-0097; 4500030114]
RIN 1018-AX41


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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; reproposal.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
designate critical habitat for the Lost River sucker (Deltistes 
luxatus) and shortnose sucker (Chasmistes brevirostris) under the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). In total, we are 
proposing as critical

[[Page 76338]]

habitat approximately 146 miles (234 kilometers) of streams and 117,848 
acres (47,691 hectares) of lakes and reservoirs for Lost River sucker 
and approximately 128 miles (207 kilometers) of streams and 123,590 
acres (50,015 hectares) of lakes and reservoirs for shortnose sucker. 
The proposed critical habitat is located in Klamath and Lake Counties, 
Oregon, and Modoc County, California. On December 1, 1994, we published 
proposed critical habitat for Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker. 
This new proposed rule uses updated information concerning Lost River 
sucker's and shortnose sucker's ecology, as well as the technological 
advancements made available since preparing the 1994 proposed rule, to 
inform our proposed critical habitat designation for Lost River sucker 
and shortnose sucker.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before 
February 6, 2012. We must receive requests for public hearings, in 
writing, at the address shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section by January 23, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Enter Keyword or ID box, enter Docket No. 
FWS-R8-ES-2011-0097, which is the docket number for this rulemaking.
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public 
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R8-ES-2011-0097; Division of Policy and 
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax 
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
    We will not accept email or faxes. We will post all comments on 
https://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any 
personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section 
below for more information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurie R. Sada, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Klamath Falls Fish and Wildlife Office, 1936 
California Avenue, Klamath Falls, OR 97601; telephone 541-885-8481; 
facsimile 541-885-7837. If you use a telecommunications device for the 
deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-
877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request 
comments or information from government agencies, the scientific 
community, industry, or any other interested party concerning this 
proposed rule. We particularly seek comments concerning:
    (1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as 
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.), including whether there are threats to the species from human 
activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase due to the 
designation, and whether that increase in threat outweighs the benefit 
of designation such that the designation of critical habitat may not be 
prudent.
    (2) Specific information on:
    (a) The amount and distribution of Lost River sucker and shortnose 
sucker habitat;
    (b) What areas, that were occupied at the time of listing (or are 
currently occupied) contain physical and biological features essential 
to the conservation of the species, should be included in the 
designation and why;
    (c) Special management considerations or protection that may be 
needed for the physical and biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species in critical habitat areas we are proposing, 
including managing for the potential effects of climate change; and
    (d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing that meet our 
criteria for being essential for the conservation of the species should 
be included in the designation and why.
    (3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the 
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
    (4) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of 
climate change on the Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker, the 
features essential to its conservation, and the areas proposed as 
critical habitat.
    (5) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical 
habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding 
any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act;
    (6) Any probable economic, national security, environmental, 
cultural, or other relevant impacts of designating as critical habitat 
any area that may be included in the final designation. In particular, 
we seek information on any impacts on small entities, and the benefits 
of including or excluding areas that exhibit these impacts; and
    (7) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating 
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation 
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and 
comments.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not 
accept comments sent by email or fax or to an address not listed in the 
ADDRESSES section. We will post your entire comment--including your 
personal identifying information--on https://www.regulations.gov. You 
may request at the top of your document that we withhold personal 
information such as your street address, phone number, or email address 
from public review; however, we cannot guarantee that we will be able 
to do so.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov, or by 
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Klamath Falls Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Background

    It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to 
the designation of critical habitat for these species in this proposed 
rule. For further information on the Lost River sucker's and shortnose 
sucker's biology and habitat, population abundance and trend, 
distribution, demographic features, habitat use and conditions, 
threats, and conservation measures, please see the final listing rule 
(53 FR 27130; July 18, 1988), the 2007 5-year reviews completed for the 
Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker (Service 2007a and 2007b), and 
the Draft Revised Lost River Sucker and Shortnose Sucker Recovery Plan 
(Service 2011). These documents are available on the Klamath Falls Fish 
and Wildlife Office web site at https://www.fws.gov/klamathfallsfwo/or 
on the Environmental Conservation Online System https://ecos.fws.gov/ecos/indexPublic.do).
    Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker are members of the fish 
family Catostomidae and are endemic to the upper Klamath River basin 
(National Research Council of the National Academies (NRC) 2004, pp. 
184, 189). Both species predominantly inhabit lake environments but 
also utilize riverine, marsh, and shoreline habitats for portions of 
their life history. Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker spawn in the 
spring in rivers and creeks in areas with a moderate velocity of water 
flow

[[Page 76339]]

containing gravel or cobble substrate at depths less than 1.3 meters 
(m) (4.3 feet (ft)) (Moyle 2002, pp. 200, 204). In addition, a small 
group of Lost River sucker spawns at several shoreline springs along 
the eastern portion of Upper Klamath Lake (Janney et al. 2008, p. 
1813).
    Lost River sucker are distributed within Upper Klamath Lake and its 
tributaries (Klamath County, Oregon), Clear Lake Reservoir and its 
tributaries (Modoc County, California), Tule Lake (Siskiyou and Modoc 
Counties, California), Lost River (Klamath County, Oregon, and Modoc 
County, California), Link River (Klamath County, Oregon), and the 
Klamath River mainstem, including Keno, J.C. Boyle, Copco, and Iron 
Gate Reservoirs (Klamath County, Oregon, and Siskiyou County, 
California; Moyle 2002, p. 199; NRC 2004, pp. 190-192). The 
distribution of shortnose sucker overlaps with that of Lost River 
sucker, but shortnose sucker also occurs in Gerber Reservoir (Klamath 
County, Oregon) and upper Willow Creek (Modoc County, California, and 
Lake County, Oregon), a tributary to Clear Lake Reservoir (Buettner and 
Scoppettone 1991, p. 18; Moyle 2002, p. 203; NRC 2004, pp. 190-192).
    Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker were once widespread in the 
upper Klamath River basin and were important to subsistence, 
commercial, and recreational fishers (Moyle 2002, pp. 200-201, 204; 
Service 2011, pp. 1, 28-29). Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker 
have been extirpated from portions of their historic range (Moyle 2002, 
pp. 200, 204), and previous efforts to monitor angler catch rates have 
indicated extreme population declines relative to former levels 
(Scoppettone and Vinyard 1991, p. 367; NRC 2004, p. 203). Putative 
factors for declines include introduction of exotic species and habitat 
loss and alteration, primarily due to construction of dams, water 
diversions, and draining of wetlands (Scoppettone and Vinyard 1991, pp. 
368-369, 371; Moyle 2002, pp. 200-201, 204).

Previous Federal Actions

    The Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker were listed as 
endangered on July 18, 1988 (53 FR 27130). A recovery plan for Lost 
River sucker and shortnose sucker was finalized on March 17, 1993 
(Service 1993). Five-year reviews for the Lost River sucker and 
shortnose sucker were completed on July 19, 2007 (73 FR 11945; March 5, 
2008). A considerable amount of scientific information has been 
collected since the 1993 recovery plan and an updated, revised draft 
recovery plan for the Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker was 
released in 2011 (Service 2011).
    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 sucker and shortnose sucker. On November 12, 1991, 
ONRC filed suit in Federal Court (Wendell Wood et al. v. Marvin 
Plenert, et al. (Case No. 91-06496-TC (D. Or.))). The Service entered 
into a settlement agreement and agreed to complete a final recovery 
plan by March 1, 1993, and a proposal to designate critical habitat on 
or before March 10, 1994, and publish a final critical habitat rule by 
November 29, 1994.
    On December 1, 1994, we published proposed critical habitat for 
Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker (59 FR 61744); that proposal was 
never finalized. The ONRC (now known as Oregon Wild) recently contacted 
the Department of Justice and requested that we issue a final critical 
habitat rule within a reasonable amount of time. On May 10, 2010, a 
settlement agreement was reached that stipulated the Service submit a 
final rule designating critical habitat for the Lost River sucker and 
the shortnose sucker to the Federal Register no later than November 30, 
2012 (Wood et al. v. Thorson et al., No. 91-cv-6496-TC (D. Or.)). Given 
this settlement agreement, advancement in our understanding of Lost 
River sucker's and shortnose sucker's ecology, and the technological 
advancements made available since preparing the former proposed rule, 
we now issue a new proposed critical habitat rule.

Critical Habitat

Background

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
    (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the 
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which 
are found those physical or biological features
    (a) Essential to the conservation of the species and
    (b) Which may require special management considerations or 
protection; and
    (2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas 
are essential for the conservation of the species.
    Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use 
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring 
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures 
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and 
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated 
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law 
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live 
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where 
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise 
relieved, may include regulated taking.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the requirement that Federal agencies insure, in consultation 
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is 
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect 
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or 
other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government 
or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require 
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by 
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner seeks or requests Federal 
agency funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed 
species or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 
7(a)(2) would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or adverse 
modification finding, the obligation of the Federal action agency and 
the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but to 
implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction or 
adverse modification of critical habitat.
    For inclusion in a critical habitat designation, the habitat within 
the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it was listed 
must contain physical and biological features which are essential to 
the conservation of the species and which may require special 
management considerations or protection. Critical habitat designations 
identify, to the extent known using the best scientific and commercial 
data available, those physical and biological features that are 
essential to the conservation of the species (such as space, food, 
cover, and protected habitat), focusing on the principal biological or 
physical constituent elements (primary constituent elements) within an 
area that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as 
roost sites, nesting grounds, seasonal

[[Page 76340]]

wetlands, water quality, tide, soil type). Primary constituent elements 
are the elements of physical and biological features that, when laid 
out in the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement to provide for 
a species' life-history processes, are essential to the conservation of 
the species.
    Under the Act, we can designate critical habitat in areas outside 
the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, 
upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation 
of the species. We designate as critical habitat areas outside the 
geographical area presently occupied by a species only when a 
designation limited to its present range would be inadequate to ensure 
the conservation of the species. When the best available scientific 
data do not demonstrate that the conservation needs of the species 
require such additional areas, we will not designate critical habitat 
in areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species. An area 
currently occupied by the species but that was not occupied at the time 
of listing may, however, be essential to the conservation of the 
species and may be included in the critical habitat designation.
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on 
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available. 
Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered 
Species Act (published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 
34271)), the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and 
General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 
106-554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality 
Guidelines, provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide 
guidance to ensure that our decisions are based on the best scientific 
data available. They require our biologists, to the extent consistent 
with the Act and with the use of the best scientific data available, to 
use primary and original sources of information as the basis for 
recommendations to designate critical habitat.
    When we are determining which areas should be designated as 
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the 
information developed during the listing process for the species. 
Additional information sources may include the recovery plan for the 
species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans 
developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and 
studies, biological assessments, or other unpublished materials and 
expert opinion or personal knowledge.
    Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another 
over time. Climate change will be a particular challenge for 
biodiversity because the interaction of additional stressors associated 
with climate change and current stressors may push species beyond their 
ability to survive (Lovejoy 2005, pp. 325-326). The synergistic 
implications of climate change and habitat fragmentation are the most 
threatening facet of climate change for biodiversity (Hannah et al. 
2005, p.4). Current climate change predictions for terrestrial areas in 
the Northern Hemisphere indicate warmer air temperatures, more intense 
precipitation events, and increased summer continental drying (Field et 
al. 1999, pp. 1-3; Hayhoe et al. 2004, p. 12422; Cayan et al. 2005, p. 
6; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007, p. 1181). 
Climate change may lead to increased frequency and duration of severe 
storms and droughts (McLaughlin et al. 2002, p. 6074; Cook et al. 2004, 
p. 1015; Golladay et al. 2004, p. 504).
    The specific effects of climate change on the upper Klamath River 
basin have not been thoroughly investigated; however, potential effects 
include increased temperatures, drier summers, and higher snowpack 
elevation (Koopman et al. 2009, p. 3). As a result of increased 
temperatures, it is anticipated the peak spring runoff of tributary 
streams will shift earlier in the year from spring to late winter (Poff 
et al. 2002, p. 11). Thus, we anticipate Lost River sucker and 
shortnose sucker may experience altered timing of spawning migrations, 
i.e., spawning migrations may occur earlier in the year. Furthermore, 
altered stream flow into lakes may lead to lower lake levels (Poff et 
al. 2002, p. 15). Lower lake levels may prevent fish from accessing 
refugia or shoreline spawning areas, such as spring-influenced habitat, 
that may be important during periods of poor water quality (Banish et 
al. 2009, p. 165). As lakes warm in response to increased temperatures, 
algal production increases (Poff et al. 2002, p. 13), which may 
exacerbate hypereutrophic (nutrient rich) systems, such as Upper 
Klamath Lake. Nuisance algal blooms are already considered a threat to 
Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker (Perkins et al. 2000, pp. 24-25, 
30), and therefore may be a heightened threat in the face of climate 
change. Diseases such as gill rot caused by the Columnaris bacterium 
also are likely to become more of a concern with higher water 
temperatures (NRC 2004, p. 201).
    We recognize that critical habitat designated at a particular point 
in time may not include all of the habitat areas that we may later 
determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. For these 
reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that habitat 
outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be required for 
recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the conservation 
of the species, both inside and outside the critical habitat 
designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation actions 
implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) regulatory 
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act 
for Federal agencies to insure their actions are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened 
species, and (3) the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act if actions 
occurring in these areas may affect the species. Federally funded or 
permitted projects affecting listed species outside their designated 
critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some 
cases. These protections and conservation tools will continue to 
contribute to recovery of this species. Similarly, critical habitat 
designations made on the basis of the best available information at the 
time of designation will not control the direction and substance of 
future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or other 
species conservation planning efforts if new information available at 
the time of these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.

Physical or Biological Features

    In accordance with sections 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act 
and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the 
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing to 
designate as critical habitat, we consider the physical and biological 
features essential to the conservation of the species which may require 
special management considerations or protection. These include, but are 
not limited to:
    (1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal 
behavior;
    (2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or 
physiological requirements;
    (3) Cover or shelter;
    (4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development) 
of offspring; and
    (5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are 
representative of the

[[Page 76341]]

historical, geographical, and ecological distributions of a species.
    We derive the specific physical or biological features required for 
Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker from studies of this species' 
habitat, ecology, and life history as described below. Additional 
information can be found in the final listing rule published in the 
Federal Register on July 18, 1988 (53 FR 27130), and the Draft Revised 
Recovery Plan for the Lost River Sucker and Shortnose Sucker (Service 
2011). We have determined that Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker 
require the following physical or biological features:
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
    Lakes, streams, marshes, and spring habitats with migratory 
corridors between these habitats provide space for individual and 
population growth and for normal behavior of Lost River sucker.
    Lost River sucker spend most of their lives within lakes although 
they primarily spawn in streams (Moyle 2002, p. 199). Spawning occurs 
in late winter and early spring in major tributaries to lakes where 
they occur. In addition, a small proportion of Lost River sucker 
utilize spring areas within Upper Klamath Lake for spawning (Janney et 
al. 2008, p. 1813). After hatching, larval Lost River sucker drift 
downstream within spawning tributaries and reach lakes by mid-summer. 
Larval habitat is generally along the shoreline, in water 10 
centimeters (cm) to 50 cm (6 inches (in) to 20 in) deep where emergent 
vegetation provides cover from predators, protection from currents and 
turbulence, and abundant food (Cooperman and Markle 2004, p. 375). As 
larval suckers grow into the juvenile stage, they increasingly use 
deeper habitat with and without emergent vegetation. Adult Lost River 
sucker primarily use deep (greater than 2.0 m (6.6 ft)), open-water 
habitat as well as spring-influenced habitats that act as refugia 
during poor water quality events (Banish et al. 2009, pp. 159-161, 
165).
    Reservoirs also figure prominently in meeting the requirements for 
space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior of 
Lost River sucker. Much of the upper Klamath River basin landscape has 
been hydrologically altered since Anglo-European settlement, including 
construction of reservoirs. Some reservoirs have adversely affected 
Lost River sucker, while others may provide benefits. For example, the 
dam on Malone Reservoir blocks access to historical Lost River sucker 
habitat for individuals migrating in the mainstem Lost River. In 
contrast, construction of hydroelectric dams on the mainstem Klamath 
River and construction of Clear Lake Reservoir likely have increased 
the amount of available habitat.
    Because shortnose sucker share the same habitats as Lost River 
sucker, the lakes, reservoirs, streams, marshes, and spring habitats 
with migratory corridors between these habitats also provide space for 
individual and population growth and for normal behavior of shortnose 
sucker. Therefore, based on the information above, we identify lakes, 
reservoirs, streams, marshes, and spring habitats with migratory 
corridors between these habitats to be a physical or biological feature 
essential for the conservation of both Lost River sucker and shortnose 
sucker.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or 
Physiological Requirements
    Adult Lost River sucker have subterminal mouths and gill raker 
structures that are adapted for feeding primarily on benthic 
macroinvertebrates in lake environments (NRC 2004, p. 190). Prey 
selection, however, appears to be a function of developmental shifts in 
habitat use. Lost River sucker larvae feed near the surface of the 
water column, primarily on chironomids (commonly called ``midges''; a 
family of small flies whose larval and pupal stages are mainly aquatic) 
(Markle and Clauson 2006, pp. 494-495). Juvenile Lost River sucker rely 
less on surface-oriented feeding and shift to prey items from benthic 
areas. For instance, Markle and Clauson (2006, pp. 495-496) documented 
that juvenile Lost River suckers consumed chironomid larvae as well as 
micro-crustaceans (amphipods, copepods, cladocerans, and ostracods). As 
adults, Lost River sucker consume many of these same items (Moyle 2002, 
pp. 199-200).
    Shortnose sucker have terminal mouths and gill raker structures 
adapted for feeding on zooplankton (Moyle 2002, p. 203; NRC 2004, p. 
190). Similar to Lost River sucker, shortnose sucker also exhibit an 
ontogenetic shift in prey selection (Markle and Clauson 2006, pp. 494-
495). Adult shortnose sucker also consume many of the same prey items 
as juveniles, including chironomid larvae, amphipods, copepods, 
cladocerans, and ostracods (Moyle 2002, p. 203; Markle and Clauson 
2006, pp. 494-495).
    Habitats must provide the necessary conditions, including water 
with sufficient phytoplankton and fine aquatic substrate, to harbor 
prey species in sufficient quantity and diversity to meet the 
nutritional and physiological requirements necessary to maintain Lost 
River sucker and shortnose sucker populations. Therefore, based on the 
information above, we identify an abundant food base, including a broad 
array of chironomids, micro-crustaceans, and other small aquatic 
macroinvertebrates, to be a biological feature necessary for both Lost 
River sucker and shortnose sucker.
Cover or Shelter
    The cover and shelter components, including emergent vegetation and 
depth, are the same for shortnose sucker as for Lost River sucker. Lost 
River sucker and shortnose sucker larvae density is generally higher 
within and adjacent to emergent vegetation than in areas devoid of 
vegetation (Cooperman and Markle 2004, p. 374; Crandall et al. 2008, p. 
413; Erdman and Hendrixson 2009, p. 18; Cooperman et al. 2010, p. 34). 
Emergent vegetation provides cover from predators and habitat for prey 
such as zooplankton, macroinvertebrates, and periphyton (Klamath Tribes 
1996, p. 12; Cooperman and Markle 2004, p. 375). Such areas also may 
provide refuge from wind-blown current and turbulence, as well as areas 
of warmer water temperature, which may facilitate larval growth 
(Cooperman and Markle 2004, p. 375; Crandall 2004, p. 7; Cooperman et 
al. 2010, pp. 35-36).
    Different life stages use different water depths as cover or 
shelter. Juvenile Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker primarily use 
relatively shallow (less than approximately 1.2 m (3.9 ft)) vegetated 
areas, but may also begin to move into deeper, unvegetated, off-shore 
habitats (Buettner and Scoppettone 1990, pp. 33, 51; Markle and Clauson 
2006, p. 499). Data from Upper Klamath Lake indicate juveniles of less 
than 1 year often are found at depths less than 1.0 m (3 ft) in May and 
June, but shift in late July to water 1.5 to 2.0 m (5 to 6.5 ft) deep 
(Burdick and Brown 2010, p. 50; no similar data exist from other 
occupied water bodies). Similarly, 1-year-old juveniles occupy shallow 
habitats during April and May, but may move into deeper areas along the 
western shore of Upper Klamath Lake (e.g., Eagle Ridge trench) until 
dissolved oxygen levels become reduced in mid- to late-July (Bottcher 
and Burdick 2010, p. 17; Burdick and VanderKooi 2010, p. 13). Juveniles 
then appear to move into shallower habitat along the eastern shore or 
main part of Upper Klamath Lake (Bottcher and Burdick 2010, p. 17).
    It is assumed that sub-adults, i.e., individuals that display all 
of the

[[Page 76342]]

characteristics of adults with the exception of reproductive maturity 
and reproductive structures (e.g., tubercles), utilize habitats similar 
to adults (NRC 2004, p. 199). Adult Lost River sucker and shortnose 
sucker inhabit water depths of 0.9 to 4.8 m (3.0 to 15.7 ft) (Reiser et 
al. 2001, p. 5-26; Banish et al. 2009, p. 161). In addition, cover 
(e.g., large woody debris) is sparse in many of the lentic habitats 
occupied by adult Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker, so water 
depth or turbidity may provide concealment from avian predators (Banish 
et al. 2009, p. 164).
    Therefore, based on the information above, we identify lakes and 
reservoirs with adequate amounts of emergent vegetation of appropriate 
depth and water quality to provide for cover and shelter as described 
above to be a physical or biological feature for Lost River sucker and 
shortnose sucker.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of 
Offspring
    Throughout their range, Lost River sucker ascend large tributary 
streams to spawn, generally from February through April, often 
corresponding with spring snowmelt (Moyle 2002, p. 200; NRC 2004, p. 
194). They have been documented migrating upstream as many as 120 
kilometers (km) in the Sprague River (75 miles (mi)) (Ellsworth et al. 
2007, p. 20). Beginning at the same time, a segment of the Lost River 
sucker population uses shoreline areas affected by input of spring 
discharge for spawning in Upper Klamath Lake (Janney et al. 2008, p. 
1813). In rivers, spawning occurs in riffles and pools over gravel and 
cobble substrate at depths less than 1.3 m (4.3 ft) and velocities up 
to 85 cm per second (2.8 ft per second; Buettner and Scoppettonne 1990, 
p. 20; Moyle 2002, p. 200; NRC 2004, p. 194). At shoreline spring 
habitat, spawning occurs over similar substrate and at similar depths. 
Females broadcast their eggs, which are fertilized most commonly by two 
accompanying males (Buettner and Scoppettone 1990, p. 17). The 
fertilized eggs settle within the top few inches of the substrate until 
hatching, around 1 week later. Generally, larvae spend little time in 
rivers after swim-up, but quickly drift downstream to lakes (Cooperman 
and Markle 2003, pp. 1147-1149). Downstream movement occurs mostly at 
night near the water surface (Ellsworth et al. 2010, pp. 51-52). Larvae 
transform into juveniles by mid-July at about 25 mm (0.98 in) total 
length. Juvenile Lost River sucker primarily occupy relatively shallow 
(less than approximately 50 cm (1.6 ft)), vegetated areas, but also may 
begin to move into deeper, unvegetated, off-shore habitats as they grow 
(Buettner and Scoppettone 1990, pp. 32-33; NRC 2004, p. 198).
    Throughout their range, shortnose sucker ascend large tributary 
streams to spawn, generally from February through May, often 
corresponding with spring snowmelt (Moyle 2002, p. 204; NRC 2004, p. 
194). Shortnose sucker have been documented migrating upstream as far 
as 13 km (8 mi) in the Sprague River (Ellsworth et al. 2007, p. 20). 
Spawning at shoreline springs in Upper Klamath Lake by shortnose sucker 
is presently rare (NRC 2004, p. 194). In lotic habitat, spawning occurs 
in similar habitat as Lost River sucker spawning, although spawning may 
occur in areas with greater stream flow (up to 125 cm per second (4.1 
ft per second); Moyle 2002, p. 204). At shoreline spring habitat, 
spawning occurs over similar substrate and at similar depths to Lost 
River sucker spawning. Females broadcast their eggs, which are 
fertilized most commonly by two accompanying males (Buettner and 
Scoppettone 1990, p. 44). Larval out-migration, and larval and juvenile 
rearing patterns, are similar to Lost River sucker (Buettner and 
Scoppettone 1990, p. 51; Cooperman and Markle 2004, pp. 374-375; NRC 
2004, p. 198; Ellsworth et al. 2010, pp. 51-52).
    Therefore, based on the information above, we identify accessible 
lake and river spawning locations with suitable water flow, gravel and 
cobble substrate, and water depth (as well as flowing water) for larval 
out-migration and juvenile rearing habitat as described above to be 
physical features for both Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker.
Primary Constituent Elements for Lost River Sucker and Shortnose Sucker
    Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to 
identify the physical and biological features essential to the 
conservation of Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker in areas 
occupied at the time of listing, focusing on the features' primary 
constituent elements. We consider primary constituent elements to be 
the specific elements of physical and biological features that are 
essential to the conservation of the species.
    Based on our current knowledge of the physical or biological 
features and habitat characteristics required to sustain the species' 
life-history processes, we determine that the primary constituent 
elements specific to self-sustaining Lost River sucker and shortnose 
sucker populations are:
    (1) Water. Areas with sufficient water quantity and depth within 
lakes, reservoirs, streams, marshes, springs, groundwater sources, and 
refugia habitats with minimal physical, biological, or chemical 
impediments to connectivity. Water should exhibit depths ranging from 
less than 1.0 m (3.28 ft) up to 4.5 m (14.8 ft) to accommodate each 
life stage. The water quality characteristics should include water 
temperatures of less than 28.0 [deg]Celsius (82.4[emsp14][deg]F); pH 
less than 9.75; dissolved oxygen levels greater than 4.0 mg per L; 
algal toxins (less than 1.0 microgram ([mu]g) per L); and un-ionized 
ammonia (less than 0.5 mg per L). Elements also include natural flow 
regimes that provide flows during the appropriate time of year or, if 
flows are controlled, minimal flow departure from a natural hydrograph.
    (2) Spawning and rearing habitat. Streams and shoreline springs 
with gravel and cobble substrate at depths typically less than 1.3 m 
(4.3 ft) with adequate stream velocity to allow spawning to occur. 
Areas identified in PCE1 containing emergent vegetation adjacent to 
open water that provides habitat for rearing . This facilitates growth 
and survival of suckers, as well as protection from predation and 
protection from currents and turbulence.
    (3) Food. Areas that contain an abundant forage base, including a 
broad array of chironomidae, crustacea, and other aquatic 
macroinvertebrates.
    With this proposed designation of critical habitat, we intend to 
identify the physical and biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species, through the identification of the 
appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement of the primary constituent 
elements sufficient to support the life-history processes of the 
species.

Special Management Considerations or Protection

    When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific 
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time 
of listing contain features which are essential to the conservation of 
the species and which may require special management considerations or 
protection. Special management considerations or protection may be 
necessary to eliminate or reduce the magnitude of threats that affect 
these species. Threats identified in the final listing rule for these 
species include: (1) Poor water quality; (2) potential entrainment at 
water diversion structures; (3) lack of access to essential spawning 
habitat; (4) lack of connectivity to historical habitat (i.e., 
migratory impediments); (5) degradation of spawning, rearing, and

[[Page 76343]]

adult habitat; and (6) predation by or competition with nonnative fish.
    Poor water quality is particularly associated with high abundance 
of the blue-green alga Aphanizomenon flos-aque. Core samples of bottom 
sediments indicate that A. flos-aque was not present in Upper Klamath 
Lake prior to the 1900s (Bradbury et al. 2004, p. 162; Eilers et al. 
2004, p. 14). Its appearance is believed to be associated with 
increases in productivity of the lake through human influence (NRC 
2004, pp. 108-110). This alga now dominates the algal community from 
June to November, and, because of the high phosphorus concentrations 
and its ability to fix nitrogen, is able to reach seasonally high 
biomass levels that eventually produce highly degraded water quality 
(Boyd et al. 2002, p. 34). Once the algal bloom subsides, decomposition 
of the massive amounts of biomass can lower dissolved oxygen and raise 
pH to levels harmful or fatal to fish (Perkins et al. 2000, pp. 24-25; 
Wood et al. 2006, p. 1). Additionally, other cyanobacteria (Microcystis 
sp.) may produce toxins harmful to sucker liver tissue (VanderKooi et 
al. 2010, p. 2). Special management considerations or protections are 
therefore needed to protect water quality from the deleterious effects 
of algal blooms and may include reducing excess phosphorus 
concentrations by fencing cattle out of riparian areas, reconfiguring 
agricultural waterways, increasing riparian stands of vegetation, and 
restoring wetland habitat that is crucial for filtering sediment and 
nutrients.
    Hydrographs of both Clear Lake Reservoir and Upper Klamath Lake 
exhibit patterns of a snow-melt driven system with highest inflows and 
levels during spring and early summer, although groundwater also is a 
significant contributor to Upper Klamath Lake (Gannett et al. 2007, p. 
1). However, Clear Lake Reservoir, Gerber Reservoir, and Upper Klamath 
Lake are managed to store and divert water for irrigation every year. 
Clear Lake Reservoir is highly sensitive to drought and downstream 
water delivery because of its small watershed, low precipitation, 
minimal groundwater input, and high evaporation rates (NRC 2004, p. 
129). In the dry years of 1991 and 1992, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 
(BOR) drew down the level of Clear Lake Reservoir to extremely low 
levels for irrigation supply (Moyle 2002, p. 201). In 1992, Lost River 
sucker within Clear Lake Reservoir were examined and exhibited signs of 
stress, including high rates of parasitism and poor body condition (NRC 
2004, p. 132). These signs of stress began to decline as the water 
level in Clear Lake Reservoir rose in 1993, at the end of the drought 
(NRC 2004, p. 132). In 2009, when lake levels were again low due to 
drought, diversions from Clear Lake Reservoir were halted in mid-
summer, and there were no diversions in 2010. Additionally, low lake 
levels adversely affect Clear Lake Reservoir sucker populations by 
limiting access to Willow Creek, the sole spawning tributary (Barry et 
al. 2009, p. 3). Likewise, the amount of available larval habitat and 
suitable shoreline spring spawning habitat in Upper Klamath Lake is 
significantly affected by even minor changes in lake elevation (Service 
2008, p. 79). Therefore, special management considerations or 
protections are needed to address fluctuations in water levels due to 
regulated flow and lake elevation management. Special management may 
include the following actions: managing bodies of water such that there 
is minimal flow departure from a natural hydrograph; maintaining, 
improving, or reestablishing instream flows to improve the quantity of 
water available for use; and maintaining or improving groundwater use.
    The effects of fluctuations in water levels due to regulated flow 
management may affect the ability of Lost River sucker and shortnose 
sucker to access refugia during periods of poor water quality. For 
example, Pelican Bay appears to act as a key refugium during periods of 
poor water quality, and efforts to maintain the quality and quantity of 
the habitat there may be beneficial for suckers (Banish et al. 2009, p. 
167). Therefore, special management considerations or protections are 
needed to address access to refugia and may include the following: 
maintaining appropriate lake depths to allow access to refugia; 
restoring degraded habitats to improve quantity of flow at refugia as 
well as refugia quality; and maintaining or establishing riparian 
buffers around refugia to improve refugia water quality.
    The Klamath Project (Project) stores and later diverts water from 
Upper Klamath Lake for a variety of Project purposes. These operations 
result in lake levels and flows at the outlet of the lake that differ 
from historic conditions, some of which increase movement of juvenile 
fish downstream of Upper Klamath Lake. As such, special management 
considerations or protections for water quantity may be needed to 
address water intake at water diversion structures to improve water 
diversion efficiency to increase the quantity of water available as 
habitat.
    Throughout the Upper Klamath Lake and Lost River Basin, timber 
harvesting and associated activities (e.g., road building) by Federal, 
State, tribal, and private landowners have resulted in soil erosion on 
harvested lands and transport of sediment into streams and rivers 
adjacent to or downstream from those lands (Service 2002, p. 65; NRC 
2004, pp. 65-66). Past logging and road building practices often did 
not provide for adequate soil stabilization and erosion control. A high 
density of forest roads remain in the upper Klamath River basin, and 
many of these are located near streams where they likely contribute 
sediment (USFS 1995, p. 7), which results in an increase of fine soil 
particles that can cover spawning substrata. The major agricultural 
activity in the upper Klamath River basin, livestock grazing, also has 
likely led to an increase in sediment and nutrient loading rates by 
accelerating erosion (Moyle 2002, p. 201; Service 2002, pp. 56, 65; 
McCormick and Campbell 2007, pp. 6-7). Livestock, particularly cattle, 
have heavily grazed flood plains, wetlands, forest, rangelands, and 
riparian areas, resulting in the degradation of these areas. Grazing 
alters the streamside riparian vegetation and compacts soil surfaces, 
increasing groundwater runoff, lowering streambank stability, and 
reducing cover. The increase in sediment accumulation and nutrient 
loading is consistent with the changes in land use in the upper Klamath 
River basin occurring over the last century (Bradbury et al. 2004, pp. 
163-164; Eilers et al. 2004, pp. 14-16). Therefore, special management 
considerations or protections may be required to improve water quality 
and include: reducing sediment and nutrient loading by protecting 
riparian areas from agricultural and forestry impacts, reducing road 
density to prevent excess sediment loading, and improving cattle 
management practices.
    Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker have limited hydrologic 
connection to spawning or rearing habitat. For example, low lake levels 
adversely affect Clear Lake Reservoir sucker populations by limiting 
access to the Willow Creek drainage, the sole spawning tributary (Barry 
et al. 2009, p. 3). Likewise, the amount of suitable shoreline spring 
spawning habitat in Upper Klamath Lake is significantly affected by 
even minor changes in lake elevation, but it is unknown exactly how 
such levels directly affect annual productivity. Several shoreline 
spring-spawning populations, including Harriman Springs and Barkley 
Springs,

[[Page 76344]]

have been lost or significantly altered due to railroad construction 
(Andreasen 1975, pp. 39-40; NRC 2004, p. 228). Historically, wetlands 
comprised hundreds of thousands of hectares throughout the range of the 
species (Gearhart et al. 1995, pp. 119-120; Moyle 2002, p. 200; NRC 
2004, pp. 72-73), some of which likely functioned as crucial habitat 
for larvae and juveniles. Other wetlands may have played vital roles in 
the quality and quantity of water. Loss of ecosystem functions such as 
these, due to alteration or separation of the habitat, is as 
detrimental as physical loss of the habitat. Approximately 70 percent 
of the original 20,400 ha (50,400 ac) of wetlands surrounding Upper 
Klamath Lake was diked, drained, or significantly altered beginning 
around 1889 (Akins 1970, pp. 73-76; Gearhart et al. 1995, p. 2). 
Additionally, of the approximately 13,816 ha (34,140 ac) of wetlands 
connected to Upper Klamath Lake, relatively little functions as rearing 
habitat for larvae and juveniles, partly due to lack of connectivity 
with current spawning areas (NRC 2004, pp. 72-73). Therefore, special 
management considerations or protections may be needed for water 
quantity to improve access to spawning locations and quality and 
quantity of wetlands used as rearing habitat. This may be accomplished 
by: improving lake level management to allow access to spawning 
locations during late winter and early spring, restoring access to 
wetland rearing habitat, and creating wetland rearing habitat adjacent 
to lakes and reservoirs.
    The exotic fish species most likely to affect Lost River sucker and 
shortnose sucker is the fathead minnow. This species may prey on young 
Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker and compete with them for food 
or space (Markle and Dunsmoor 2007, pp. 571-573). For example, fathead 
minnow were first documented in the upper Klamath River basin in the 
1970s and are now the numerically dominant exotic fish in Upper Klamath 
Lake (Simon and Markle 1997, p. 142; Bottcher and Burdick 2010, p. 40; 
Burdick and VanderKooi 2010, p. 33). Additional exotic, predatory 
fishes found in sucker habitats, although typically in relatively low 
numbers, include yellow perch (Perca flavescens), bullhead (Ameiurus 
species), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), crappie (Pomoxis 
species), green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus), pumpkinseed (Lepomis 
gibbosus), and Sacramento perch (Archoplites interruptus) (NRC 2004, 
pp. 188-189). Special management considerations or protections may be 
needed to protect the forage base from predation by exotic fish species 
and could be accomplished by the following: reducing conditions that 
allow exotic fishes to be successful and restoring conditions that 
allow Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker to thrive, conducting 
evaluations to determine methods to remove exotic fish species, and 
determining methods to reduce or eliminate competition for the forage 
base upon which Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker depend to 
survive.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we use the best 
scientific and commercial data available to designate critical habitat. 
We review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements 
of the species. In accordance with the Act and its implementing 
regulation at 50 CFR 424.12(e), we consider whether designating 
additional areas--outside those currently occupied as well as those 
occupied at the time of listing--are necessary to ensure the 
conservation of the species. We are proposing to designate only areas 
within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of 
listing, and that are also presently occupied, because these areas are 
sufficient for the conservation of Lost River sucker and shortnose 
sucker and have all of the physical or biological features essential to 
the conservation of Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker. The Draft 
Lost River Sucker and Shortnose Sucker Recovery Plan (Service 2011) 
recognizes two recovery units, each containing occupied management 
units. The steps we followed in identifying critical habitat were:
    1. Our initial step in identifying critical habitat was to 
determine, in accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, the physical or biological habitat 
features essential to the conservation of the species, as explained in 
the previous section.
    2. We reviewed the best available scientific data pertaining to the 
habitat requirements of this species, including information obtained 
from the Lost River and Shortnose Sucker Recovery Team and the Recovery 
Implementation Committee, which included biologists from partner 
agencies and entities including Federal, State, tribal, and private 
biologists; experts from other scientific disciplines, such as 
hydrology and forestry; resource users; and other stakeholders with an 
interest in Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker and the habitats 
they depend on for survival or recovery. We also reviewed available 
data concerning Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker habitat use and 
preferences, habitat conditions, threats, population demographics, and 
known locations, distribution, and abundances of Lost River sucker and 
shortnose sucker.
    We identified the geographical areas occupied by Lost River sucker 
and shortnose sucker at the time of listing that contain the PBFs 
essential for the conservation of the species and which contained one 
or more of the primary constituent elements identified above. This was 
done by gathering information from the entities listed above and 
mapping Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker distribution.
    We used data gathered during the Lost River sucker and shortnose 
sucker recovery planning process and the Draft Lost River Sucker and 
Shortnose Sucker Recovery Plan (Service 2011), and supplemented those 
data with recent data developed by State agencies, tribes, the U.S. 
Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and other entities. These 
data were used to update Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker status 
and distribution data for purposes of the proposed critical habitat 
designation.
    For areas where we had data gaps, we solicited expert opinions from 
knowledgeable fisheries biologists in the local area. Material reviewed 
included data in reports submitted during section 7 consultations, 
reports from biologists holding section 10(a)(1)(A) recovery permits, 
research published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, academic 
theses, State and Federal government agency reports, and GIS data.
    In streams, critical habitat includes the stream channel within the 
designated stream reach and a lateral extent as defined by the bankfull 
elevation on one bank to the bankfull elevation on the opposite bank. 
The lateral extent of critical habitat in lakes and reservoirs is 
defined by the perimeter of the water body as mapped according to the 
U.S. Geological Survey 2009 National Hydrography Dataset. Land 
ownership calculations were based on 2011 Oregon and California Bureau 
of Land Management State office data layers. An updated data layer of 
Upper Klamath Lake and newly restored wetlands was provided by the U.S. 
Geological Survey (USGS), Western Fisheries Research Center, and 
Klamath Falls Field Station.
    3. In selecting areas to propose as critical habitat, we considered 
factors such as size, connectivity to other aquatic habitats, and 
rangewide

[[Page 76345]]

recovery considerations. We took into account the fact that Lost River 
sucker and shortnose sucker habitats include streams used largely for 
spawning and outmigration; lakes and reservoirs used for rearing, 
foraging, and migration; and springs used for spawning and refugia.
    4. In determining areas to propose as critical habitat, we relied 
upon principles of conservation biology, including: (a) Resistance and 
resiliency, to ensure sufficient habitat is protected throughout the 
range of the species to support population viability (e.g., demographic 
parameters); (b) Redundancy, to ensure multiple viable populations are 
conserved throughout the species' range; and (c) Representation, to 
ensure the representative genetic and life history of suckers (e.g., 
spring spawning and river spawning) were conserved.
    5. Using the conservation biology principles and primary 
constituent elements, we examined the distribution of Lost River sucker 
and shortnose sucker to determine critical habitat based on the 
following criteria: Largest occupied areas or populations, most highly 
connected populations and habitat, areas that can contribute to Lost 
River sucker and shortnose sucker conservation, and areas with highest 
conservation potential (e.g., essential PBFs). We then used these 
criteria to identify those areas that contain habitats essential to the 
conservation of Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker. Using the 
conservation biology principles and primary constituent elements, we 
examined the distribution of Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker to 
assess whether or not to propose areas as critical habitat. We 
emphasized areas as essential to the conservation of the Lost River and 
shortnose sucker which contained populations of highest conservation 
value with characteristics such as: (a) The largest occupied areas or 
populations, (b) the most highly connected populations and habitat, (c) 
areas that can contribute to Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker 
conservation and recovery.
    6. We examined geographic locations currently occupied by Lost 
River sucker and shortnose sucker and determined that certain areas did 
not contain the PBFs essential for the conservation of these species, 
and we have not proposed these areas as critical habitat. Such 
determinations include those areas where Lost River sucker or shortnose 
sucker: Are not viable, are not connected to spawning habitat, occur in 
low densities or abundances in very isolated populations, are greatly 
impacted by nonnative species, have very low potential for conservation 
or restoration, or have low connectivity among populations and severe 
habitat degradation.
    When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries, we made 
every effort to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered 
by buildings, pavement, and other structures because such lands lack 
physical and biological features for Lost River sucker and shortnose 
sucker. The scale of the maps we prepared under the parameters for 
publication within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the 
exclusion of such developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left 
inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this proposed 
rule have been excluded by text in the proposed rule and are not 
proposed for designation as critical habitat. Therefore, if the 
critical habitat is finalized as proposed, a Federal action involving 
these lands would not trigger section 7 consultation with respect to 
critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse modification unless 
the specific action would affect the physical and biological features 
in the adjacent critical habitat.
    We are proposing for designation of critical habitat lands that we 
have determined were occupied at the time of listing and contain 
sufficient elements of physical and biological features to support 
life-history processes essential to the conservation of the Lost River 
sucker and shortnose sucker.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

    We are proposing two units as critical habitat for Lost River 
sucker and two units for shortnose sucker with each unit being composed 
of streams, lakes, and reservoirs. The critical habitat areas we 
describe below constitute our current best assessment of areas that 
meet the definition of critical habitat for Lost River sucker and 
shortnose sucker.
    The two units we propose as critical habitat for the Lost River 
sucker, which were both occupied at the time of listing, are:
    (1) Upper Klamath Lake Unit, including Upper Klamath Lake and 
tributaries as well as the Link River and Keno Reservoir.
    (2) Lost River Basin Unit, including Clear Lake Reservoir and 
tributaries.
    The two units we propose as critical habitat for the shortnose 
sucker, which were occupied at the time of listing, are:
    (1) Upper Klamath Lake Unit, including Upper Klamath Lake and 
tributaries as well as the Link River and Keno Reservoir.
    (2) Lost River Basin Unit, including Clear Lake Reservoir and 
tributaries, and Gerber Reservoir and tributaries.
    The approximate area and stream length within each proposed 
critical habitat unit is shown in Tables 1 through 4.

 Table 1--Area of Lakes and Reservoirs Proposed as Critical Habitat for
                            Lost River Sucker
      [Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit
                               boundaries]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Land ownership by
    Critical habitat unit               type           Acres  (hectares)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Upper Klamath Lake........  Federal..............      15,198 (6,151)
                               State................           533 (216)
                               Private/Other........     74,684 (30,224)
2. Lost River Basin..........  Federal..............     27,238 (11,023)
                               State................                   0
                               Private/Other........            194 (79)
                              ------------------------------------------
    Total....................  Federal..............     42,437 (17,174)
                               State................           533 (216)
                               Private/Other........     75,249 (30,452)
                              ------------------------------------------
        Total................  .....................    118,219 (47,842)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.


[[Page 76346]]


                    Table 2--Stream Length Proposed as Critical Habitat for Lost River Sucker
                    [Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Critical habitat unit                  Land ownership by type               Miles  (kilometers)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Upper Klamath Lake....................  Federal..........................  13 (21).
                                           State............................  0.
                                           Private/Other....................  106 (171).
2. Lost River Basin......................  Federal..........................  23 (37).
                                           State............................  Less than 1.
                                           Private/Other....................  3 (5).
                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total................................  Federal..........................  36 (58).
                                           State............................  Less than 1.
                                           Private/Other....................  109 (176).
                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total............................  .................................  146 (234).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Lengths may not sum due to rounding.


 Table 3--Area of Lakes and Reservoirs Proposed as Critical Habitat for
                            Shortnose Sucker
      [Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit
                               boundaries]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Land ownership by
    Critical habitat unit               type           Acres  (hectares)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Upper Klamath Lake........  Federal..............      15,198 (6,151)
                               State................           533 (216)
                               Private/Other........     74,684 (30,224)
2. Lost River Basin..........  Federal..............     32,051 (12,971)
                               State................                   0
                               Private/Other........         1,124 (455)
                              ------------------------------------------
    Total....................  Federal..............     47,250 (19,121)
                               State................           533 (216)
                               Private/Other........     76,179 (30,829)
                              ------------------------------------------
        Total................  .....................    123,961 (50,166)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.


                    Table 4--Stream Length Proposed as Critical Habitat for Shortnose Sucker
                    [Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Critical habitat unit                  Land ownership by type               Miles  (kilometers)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Upper Klamath Lake....................  Federal..........................  6 (9).
                                           State............................  0.
                                           Private/Other....................  34 (54).
2. Lost River Basin......................  Federal..........................  72 (116).
                                           State............................  Less than 1.
                                           Private/Other....................  16 (26).
                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------