KBC FWS news release review suckers 072104

FR Doc 04-16549

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/06jun20041800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2004/04-16549.htm

[Federal Register: July 21, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 139)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 43554-43558]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr21jy04-29]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Notice of Revised
90-Day Petition Finding and Initiation of a 5-Year Status Review of the
Lost River Sucker and Shortnose Sucker

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of a revised 90-day petition finding and initiation of a
5-year status review.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
revised 90-day finding for a petition to remove the Lost River sucker
(Deltistes luxatus) and shortnose sucker (Chasmistes brevirostris)
throughout their ranges from the Federal List of Threatened and
Endangered Wildlife and Plants (List), pursuant to the Endangered
Species Act (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). We find that the petition
does not present substantial scientific or commercial information
indicating that delisting of the Lost River and shortnose suckers may
be warranted. As a result of the 1995, 1996, and 1997 fish die-offs,
the endangered suckers experienced significant losses of thousands of
adult suckers and have not recovered. Although the petition and
information in our files do not provide new information relevant to the
status of the Lost River and shortnose suckers, we are initiating a 5-
year review of these species under section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act to
consider any new information that has become available as a result of
recent actions to reduce threats to the species, and to provide the
States, tribes, agencies, university researchers, and the public an
opportunity to provide information on the status of the species. We are
requesting any new information on the Lost River and shortnose suckers
since their original listing as endangered species in 1988 (53 FR
27130).

DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on July 14,
2004. To be considered in the 5-year review, comments and information
should be submitted to us by October 31, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Data, information, written comments and materials, or
questions concerning this finding and 5-year review should be submitted
to the Field Supervisor, Klamath Falls Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 6610 Washburn Way, Klamath Falls, Oregon
97603. The petition finding, supporting data, and comments are
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business
hours at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Curt Mullis, Field Supervisor, at the
above address, or at 541-885-8481.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that the Service make a
finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species
presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating
that the petitioned action may be warranted. To the maximum extent
practicable, we must make the finding within 90 days of receipt of the
petition, and the finding is to be published promptly in the Federal
Register. If we find substantial information exists to support the
petitioned action, we are required to promptly commence a review of the
status of the species, if one has not already been initiated (50 CFR
424.14). ``Substantial information'' is defined as ``that amount of
information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the
measure proposed in the petition may be warranted'' (50 CFR 424.14(b)).
Petitioners need not prove that the petitioned action is warranted to
support a ``substantial'' finding; instead, the key consideration in
evaluating a petition for substantiality involves demonstration of the
reliability of the information supporting the action advocated by the
petition (USFWS 1995).
The factors for listing, delisting, or reclassifying a species are
described at 50 CFR 424.11. We may delist a species only if the best
scientific and commercial data available substantiate that it is
neither endangered nor threatened. Delisting may be warranted as a
result of: (1) Extinction; (2) recovery; and/or (3) a determination
that the original data used for classification of the species as
endangered or threatened were in error.
A petition to delist the Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker,
dated September 12, 2001, was submitted by Mr. Richard A. Gierak,
representing Interactive Citizens United. Three other similar petitions
were received and treated as comments on Mr. Gierak's petition. On May
14, 2002, the Service published its initial finding that the petitions
to delist the Lost River and shortnose suckers did not present
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that
delisting the suckers may be warranted (67 FR 34422). On June 12, 2002,
Walt Moden, Merle Carpenter, Charles Whitlatch, John Bair, Tiffany
Baldock, and Dale Cross filed a complaint in Federal District Court
alleging that our initial finding on the petition to delist the Lost
River sucker and shortnose sucker was arbitrary and capricious and
violated the Act (Moden v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). On
September 3, 2003, the court ruled that our finding was arbitrary and
capricious because it reached unexplained conclusions not supported by
the administrative record. The court remanded the initial finding, and
ordered us to either reissue the

[[Page 43555]]

initial finding with further explanation or proceed to a status review.
Consistent with the court's order, the Service has rewritten the
original finding, clarifying our analysis as well as addressing
additional comments made by the court and the petitioners.

Species Information

The Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker are two fishes that
naturally occur only in the upper Klamath Basin of southern Oregon and
northern California. Both species primarily reside in lake habitats and
spawn in tributary streams or at springs and shoreline areas within
Upper Klamath Lake. Historically, the two species were very numerous in
shallow lakes that occurred in the upper basin and made spawning
migrations up the rivers of the Upper Klamath basin. Concentrations of
migrating and spawning suckers were exploited as a food source by
Native Americans and white settlers. The habitat of the two species has
been highly modified, owing to water development projects, and has
contributed to their listing (USFWS 1998).
The Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker are long-lived species,
reaching ages of over 30 years. Also, both species are highly fecund,
being capable of producing larger numbers of eggs, and are more
tolerant of poor water quality conditions than trout (USFWS 2001).
These factors should make the suckers adaptable to drought and other
adverse conditions (USFWS 1992). However, because current water quality
conditions in Upper Klamath Lake and other areas are so adverse, there
is considerable mortality. Few young suckers are produced during
drought years and there is a regular order-of-magnitude decrease in
juvenile sucker numbers from summer to fall. For successful recruitment
to occur, young fish must survive to spawn, but substantial recruitment
of subadult fish into the spawning population has been rare (USFWS
2001). In a 2002 biological opinion, the Service examined data relevant
to recruitment and found: ``The available data show evidence for
relatively substantial recruitment of smaller fish into the Williamson
River population of Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker in only a
few of the last eighteen years.'' The data also show that there is
substantial recruitment into the shoreline spawning population of Lost
River suckers for only a few of the last fifteen years (USFWS 2002).
Also, there is apparently low survivorship over the first winter,
suggesting that fall/winter survival is low (USFWS 2002). Die-offs in
1995, 1996, and 1997 have killed many of the older fish, thus reducing
the ability of the populations to reproduce. Over 6,000 dead adult
suckers were collected following a 1996 fish die-off, and this figure
likely represented only a small fraction of the total that died (USFWS
2001). Following the 1995 through 1997 fish die-offs, the Sprague River
spawning index declined 80 to 90 percent for the two suckers (USFWS
2001). Therefore, current conditions, including poor water quality and
low lake levels resulting from drought, pose a serious risk to even
tolerant and adaptive fish like suckers. (The spawning index is an
indicator of the relative number of suckers that migrate in the Sprague
River during the spring spawning period. Nets to survey suckers are put
in the river weekly over the entire spawning season. The index is
calculated by taking the average number of suckers caught per day per
net and summing the averages over the season. While the spawning index
is not necessarily the most accurate measure of population size,
because individual suckers may not spawn every year and the capture
efficiency of nets can be affected by water clarity, currents, debris
loading, and other factors, it is a good indicator of trends when
measured over a long period of time. Therefore, current conditions,
including poor water quality and low lake levels resulting from
drought, pose a serious risk to even tolerant and adaptive fish like
suckers.
The two sucker species were federally listed as endangered in 1988
(53 FR 27130). The original listing and status assessments conducted in
2001 and 2002 and included in two biological opinions on the operations
of the Bureau of Reclamation's Klamath Project (USFWS 2001, 2002)
concluded that the suckers were still subject to the following threats:
(1) Drastically reduced adult populations and reduction in range; (2)
extensive habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation; (3) small or
isolated adult populations; (4) isolation of existing populations by
dams (passage); (5) poor water quality leading to large fish die-offs
and reduced fitness; (6) lack of sufficient recruitment; (7)
entrainment into irrigation and hydropower diversions; (8)
hybridization with the other native Klamath sucker species; (9)
potential competition with introduced exotic fishes; and (10) lack of
regulatory protection from Federal actions that might adversely affect
or jeopardize the species. These status assessments drew upon
information from all published and unpublished reports on the biology,
distribution, and status of the listed sucker species in the Klamath
region and the ecosystem on which they depend. The assessments also
included and considered new information that was available.

Discussion of Petition

The petition states that delisting of the Lost River and shortnose
suckers should occur because, either: (1) The estimates of the sucker
populations in the 1980s were in error and did not, in fact,
demonstrate a precipitous decline (i.e., sucker populations in the
1980s were much larger than assumed); or (2) the estimates of the
sucker populations in the 1980s were reasonably accurate, and the
suckers have demonstrated an enormous boom in the period since listing
and no longer exhibit ``endangered'' status (i.e., sucker populations
have increased and are no longer endangered).
The petition's supporting documentation consists of an excerpt
(four pages and ``Figures 2 & 3'') from testimony by David A. Vogel
before the U.S. House Committee on Resources (Vogel 2001), five
bibliographic references, and eight footnotes. The referenced testimony
concerns sucker population estimates from the 1950s to 1997, which are
included in the petition as a table labeled ``Figure 2.'' Figure 2
provides selective information for the two sucker species from three
time periods: pre-1980s (1950s-1976), 1980s, and 1990s (see Table 1
below). While this table displays population estimates that are higher
since listing, we find that comparisons of population sizes pre- and
post-listing using these data are invalid because: (1) Data were
obtained using different methods and models, and assumptions used by
those models were violated; and (2) the estimates do not refer to the
same populations. These limitations are explained below.

[[Page 43556]]

Table 1.--Estimated Lost River and Shortnose Sucker Populations From Petition Figure 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species 1950s-early 1960s 1970 1976 1984 1985 1986 1987 1996 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lost River Sucker................... Unknown................. Unknown................ Unknown................ 23,123 11,861 6,000 Unknown................ 94,000 46,000
Shortnose Sucker.................... Extremely low (< 200).... Very rare.............. 200-1,000.............. 2,650 1,490 500 Only 20 seen........... 252,000 146,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The petitioners state that sucker populations in the 1980s were
much larger than assumed at listing and therefore listing was
unnecessary. In support of this statement, the petitioner refers to Mr.
Vogel's testimony concerning sucker population estimates, which were
included in the petition (and reproduced as Figure 1) in this finding.
In response to the court's questions in its remand regarding the
significance of supplementary information concerning sucker populations
prior to the listing in 1988, we also considered data contained in
supplementary references provided by the plaintiffs, including a letter
from Craig Beinz (The Klamath Tribes) (Beinz 1986); meeting notes of
the Sucker Working Group (Williams 1986); a USFWS memorandum (USFWS
1986); and a Service endangered species technical bulletin (USFWS
1987). These documents emphasize the drastic decline in sucker
populations in the 1980s and the need for Federal protection, and thus
supported the 1988 listing.
The sucker population information for the 1980s provided by the
petitioners and reproduced above in Table 1 was obtained from surveys
jointly conducted by the Klamath Tribes and Oregon Department of Fish
and Wildlife from 1984 through 1986, and was produced in a final report
by Bienz and Ziller (1987) titled ``Status of Three Lacustrine Sucker
Species (Catostomidae).'' Sucker population information in this report
was considered by the Service in the original listing and in the two
status assessments (USFWS 1988, 2001, 2002). Bienz and Ziller (1987)
focused on sucker populations that spawned in the Sprague River, the
major tributary of the lake and the primary spawning site for Upper
Klamath Lake suckers, because it was believed that the sport fishery on
that river was adversely impacting the sucker populations. Bienz and
Ziller (1987) noted significant declines in the numbers and sizes of
suckers caught over the 3 years of their study and concluded: ``Lost
River and shortnose suckers appear headed for extirpation from Upper
Klamath and Agency lakes * * *''
Table 1, above, shows evidence that suckers spawning in the Sprague
River very likely experienced a precipitous decline between 1984 and
1986, consistent with the supporting literature provided by the
petitioners and consistent with the final listing rule (USFWS 1988).
Therefore, information referenced in the petition supports the fact
that sucker populations prior to listing experienced significant
declines. Consequently, the information cited in the petitions
corroborates the Service's 1988 determination that listing was
warranted.
The petition did not provide any information about the status of
the suckers during the period between the 1950s and 1976 other than
what is presented above in Table 1. The 2001 biological opinion
reviewed this early data and found that creel surveys indicated an
increase in the Sprague River harvest between 1966 and 1969 and then a
sharp decline by 1974 (USFWS 2001).
The petitioners state that the suckers no longer exhibit
``endangered'' status because their populations have dramatically
increased since listing, citing the referenced testimony, including
various brief statements concerning additional aspects of the sucker's
status. These statements are reviewed below.
Table 1, above, provides estimates of sucker population sizes for
the Upper Klamath Lake in 1996 and 1997. Although the original source
of the estimates is not referenced in the petitions, the Service
believes the data are from a draft report entitled ``Information on the
Population Dynamics of Shortnose and Lost River Suckers in Upper
Klamath Lake, Oregon,'' written by U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) staff
in 1998, following their spring and summer sampling of adult sucker
populations in Upper Klamath Lake and recovery of dead suckers in the
1996 through 1997 fish die-offs (Shively 2002, 2003).
The USGS did not finalize the draft report on the population
estimates, owing to concerns that the implicit assumptions in the
methods they used to estimate population sizes may have been violated
and due to concerns associated with the data's statistical limitations
(Shively 2002). As a result, the information from this report that was
referenced in the petition regarding population increases is
unreliable. With regard to the 1997 estimate, the Service concluded
that a violation had likely occurred in both of the assumptions in the
mark and recapture method (i.e., that marked fish are randomly mixed in
the population, and all fish have equal probability of being
recaptured) (USFWS 2001). Because of inherent problems with these data,
the Services did not include them in the body of its 2002 biological
opinion, but instead included the population estimates in an appendix,
where we carefully and fully explained their limitations (USFWS 2002).
Others have also concluded that the 1996 and 1997 population
estimates based on the fish die-offs are unreliable, including Dr. D.
Anderson, a specialist in the analysis of mark and recapture data to
estimate fish and wildlife population sizes (Anderson 2003); the State
of Oregon's Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team (IMST 2003); and
the National Academy of Science's National Research Council's Committee
on Endangered and Threatened Fishes in the Klamath River Basin (NRC
2003). The IMST concluded their review with the statement, ``At this
time, it is not possible to accurately determine the current total
abundance of suckers in Upper Klamath Lake or the trend in abundance
over the past 15+ years with reliability'' (IMST 2003). The NRC, which
had included the 1996 through 1997 population estimates in their 2002
draft interim report (NRC 2002), removed the population estimates from
their final report and concluded their evaluation of population sizes
with the statement: ``For purposes of ESA actions, the critical facts,
which are known with a high degree of certainty, are that the fish are
much less abundant than they originally were and that they are not
showing an increase in overall abundance'' (NRC 2003).
Additionally, the 1996 through 1997 population estimates were
derived from dead suckers collected during extensive summer die-offs,
and therefore those data were applicable to population sizes prior to
the die-offs. Based on catches of migrating suckers in the Williamson
River, the USGS found that the

[[Page 43557]]

spawning index had declined 97 percent for both species of suckers
between 1995 and 1999 (USFWS 2002). There has been an increase in the
spawning index for Lost River suckers since 1999, but it has not
reached the 1995 levels. Spawning indices for shortnose suckers are
showing little recovery and if a substantial number of adults die in
the near future, the population could plummet. Therefore, the
information in the petition and in our files, rather than showing
healthy populations in the 1990s, depicts populations subject to high
adult mortality and showing inadequate recruitment. Consequently the
data suggest a downward trend occurred in population sizes (USFWS
2002). This addresses a concern raised by the court on page 19 of the
Opinion and Order regarding apparent trends in the population
information. The trend that is apparent in the 1990s is one that is
downward.
On page 18 of the Opinion and Order, the court pointed out that the
2001 status report does not explore the differences in methodology
between estimates in the 1980s and the 1990s, except to say that ``no
accurate population estimate was available.'' As we noted through the
clarification above, data collected in the 1980s were based on sampling
in the Sprague River, while those obtained in the 1990s were based on
dead suckers recovered from the Upper Klamath Lake fish die-offs. The
population estimates, 1980s v. 1990s, are not comparable because the
1990s estimates are unreliable, as the USGS has stated, because those
data failed to meet necessary model assumptions. Also, the estimates
from the Sprague River are only for suckers that spawn in particular
reaches of the Sprague River, whereas data from the die-offs likely
represented suckers from several populations that might spawn in other
river reaches or along the shoreline of the lake. Therefore the data
are not comparable, because one data set has been invalidated and the
data were not from the same populations.
Information in the petitions noted that the Upper Klamath Lake
sucker populations have experienced substantial recruitment in recent
years and also exhibit recruitment every year. For recruitment to
occur, young suckers must survive to spawn. Although the Upper Klamath
Lake sucker populations appear to spawn and produce some young every
year, significant recruitment into the spawning population is
infrequent (USFWS 2002). From 1988 to 2001, only two relatively strong
cohorts (i.e., those born in 1991 and 1993) have recruited into the
spawning populations (USFWS 2002).
The petitioners referenced testimony that populations of both Lost
River and shortnose sucker in Clear Lake Reservoir, and the population
of shortnose sucker in Gerber Reservoir, are more abundant than
reported at the time of listing and exhibit good recruitment. Clear
Lake and Gerber Reservoir are much smaller than Upper Klamath Lake, and
therefore have smaller sucker populations. The recent status
assessments of the suckers considered this information (USFWS 2001,
2002). However, available data shows that older suckers may be absent
and the populations are physically and genetically isolated by dams
from the rest of the Upper Klamath Basin. Because of the small size of
the reservoirs and inadequate inflows during prolonged droughts, those
populations may be subject to extinction if water levels get so low
that the reservoirs are dry, if predators consume the fish, or if water
quality gets too poor for survival (USFWS 2001, 2002). Following the
drought of 1992, Clear Lake reached levels so low that it contained
only 5 percent of its full capacity. If that drought would have
continued, much of the reservoir would have been dry the following year
(USFWS 2002). Droughts also may prevent suckers from reaching upstream
spawning areas because access is blocked (USFWS 2002). Following
droughts, suckers appear to be stressed and in poor health (USFWS
2002).
The petitioners additionally referenced testimony that the
geographic range of the suckers is greater than believed at the time of
listing in 1988. The recent status assessments of the suckers reflect
that the known geographic ranges of the two suckers have not changed
substantially since listing (USFWS 2001, 2002). At the time of listing,
shortnose and Lost River suckers were reported from Upper Klamath Lake,
its tributaries, Lost River, Clear Lake Reservoir, the Klamath River,
and the three Klamath River reservoirs (Copco, Iron Gate, and J.C.
Boyle). The two additional shortnose sucker and one additional Lost
River sucker populations that have been recognized since listing are
within the Lost River drainage, which was identified as part of the
species' range at the time of listing. The populations occur in
isolated sections of the Lost River drainage and are separated from
other populations by dams. They include a small population of each
species in Tule Lake (including the lower Lost River below Anderson
Rose Dam), which are apparently limited to several hundred adults for
each species, and an isolated population of shortnose suckers in Gerber
Reservoir of unknown size. Because the additional sucker populations
were within the known range at the time of listing, we do not consider
the additional populations as representing a substantial increase in
the geographic range.
The petitioners referenced testimony that the sucker populations in
the Klamath River reservoirs are more abundant and widespread than
assumed at the time of listing. At the time of listing, a
``substantial'' population of shortnose suckers was reported from Copco
Reservoir, with additional collections from Iron Gate and J.C. Boyle
reservoirs. Lost River suckers were reported to have been collected
from all three reservoirs but have been practically eliminated from
Copco Reservoir. More recent sampling in the Klamath River reservoirs
indicates these populations are not large and there is no evidence that
these reservoir populations are self sustaining (USFWS 2001, 2002).
The petitioners also referenced testimony that hybridization among
the species of suckers in the Klamath Basin was assumed to be a threat
in the 1988 listing, but is now known not to be as problematic. The
recent status assessment of the suckers reflects that ongoing genetic
and morphological studies have confirmed that hybridization has
resulted in genes from one species being transferred to another species
and has occurred among the four species of suckers native to the
Klamath Basin (USFWS 2001, 2002). The 2002 assessment found that some
hybridization may be natural within Klamath suckers. However, the
biological and conservation implications of hybridization, as well as
the degree to which recent man-made changes to the Klamath Basin have
altered the natural rate of hybridization, are still unresolved, and
therefore the degree of the threat is unknown (USFWS 2002).
All of the issues discussed in the petitioner's referenced
testimony, i.e., mid-1990s population sizes, recruitment, geographic
range, and hybridization, are addressed in the recent biological
opinions that assessed the species' status and found that the
endangered suckers are faced with continued threats to their
populations (USFWS 2001, 2002). The quantitative comparisons among
population estimates pre- and post listing provided by the petitioners
and reproduced in Table 1 above are not informative owing to
differences in methods and violations of model assumptions.
Nevertheless, it

[[Page 43558]]

appears likely that some population increase occurred in the mid-1990s
following cessation of the sport fishery and owing to a large 1991 year
class recruiting into the adult sucker populations in the mid-1990s.
However, three consecutive years of water-quality-related die-offs in
1995 through 1997 killed a major portion of the adult populations
(USFWS 2002). Therefore, regardless of what the population sizes were
prior to the fish die-offs, they were much smaller afterwards and
consequently their reproductive potential would have been much reduced.
Following the die-offs, poor water quality was realized as a serious
threat, if not the major threat, to the two species' continued
survival. Thus, the available scientific or commercial information
indicates that: (1) The increased population numbers referenced in the
petition are based on population estimates that have been determined to
be unreliable; (2) any population increase that may have occurred in
early 1990s was offset by later declines owing to large sucker die-
offs; and (3) poor water quality was recognized as being more of a
threat than was previously considered owing to three recent fish-die-
off events.

Finding

We have reviewed the petition and its supporting documentation, as
well as information in Service files and readily available published
and unpublished studies and reports. On the basis of this review, we
find that the petitions do not present substantial information
indicating that delisting of the Lost River sucker or shortnose sucker
may be warranted.

Five-Year Review

Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act requires that we conduct a review of
listed species at least once every 5 years. We are then, under section
4(c)(2)(B), to determine, on the basis of such a review, whether or not
any species should be removed from the List (delisted), or reclassified
from endangered to threatened, or threatened to endangered. Our
regulations at 50 CFR 424.21 require that we publish a notice in the
Federal Register announcing those species currently under active
review. Although the 90-day petition finding precludes the need to
initiate a 12-month status review, we believe that a comprehensive, 5-
year status review is appropriate in order for us to consider new
information that has become available as a result of recent actions,
and to provide the States, Tribes, agencies, university researchers,
and the public an opportunity to provide information on the status of
the species. This notice announces our active review of the Lost River
sucker and shortnose sucker.
Although we recently completed status assessments for these species
(USFWS 2001, USFWS 2002), new information is being acquired and a
number of actions have been implemented or will soon be implemented to
reduce threats to the species, including installing a fish screen at A-
Canal in 2003, constructing a fish ladder at the Link River Dam in
2004, and improving passage in the near future at the Chiloquin Dam.
Additionally, habitat restoration is occurring around Upper Klamath
Lake and in its tributaries. These actions, combined with new
information on the species, could affect the species' status and we
are, therefore, proceeding to an updated status review of the species.

Public Information Solicited

To ensure that the status review is complete and based on the best
available scientific and commercial information, we are soliciting any
additional information, comments, or suggestions on the Lost River
sucker and shortnose sucker from the public, other concerned
governmental agencies, tribes, the scientific community, industry,
environmental entities, or any other interested parties. Information
sought includes any data regarding historical and current distribution,
biology and ecology, ongoing conservation measures for the species or
its habitat, and threats to the species or its habitat. We also request
information regarding the adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms.
The 5-year review considers all new information available at the
time of the review. This review will consider the best scientific and
commercial data that has become available since the current listing
determination or most recent status review, such as:
A. Species biology including, but not limited to, population
trends, distribution, abundance, demographics, and genetics;
B. Habitat conditions including, but not limited to, amount,
distribution, and suitability;
C. Conservation measures that have been implemented that benefit
the species;
D. Threat status and trends; and
E. Other new information, data, or corrections including, but not
limited to, taxonomic or nomenclatural changes, identification of
erroneous information contained in the list, and improved analytical
methods.
If you wish to provide information for the status review, you may
submit your comments and materials to the Field Supervisor, Klamath
Falls Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section). Our practice is
to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents,
available for public review during regular business hours. Respondents
may request that we withhold a respondent's identity, as allowable by
law. If you wish us to withhold your name or address, you must state
this request prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we
will not consider anonymous comments. To the extent consistent with
applicable law, we will make all submissions from organizations or
businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as
representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available
for public inspection in their entirety. Comments and materials
received will be available for public inspection, by appointment,
during normal business hours at the above address.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited in this finding is
available, upon request, from the Klamath Falls Fish and Wildlife
Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Author

The primary author of this document is Ron Larson, fishery
biologist, Klamath Falls Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES section).

Authority

The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Dated: July 14, 2004.
Marshall Jones, Jr.,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 04-16549 Filed 7-20-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P