77152 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

1The Board regional offices are listed under U.S. 

Government in the telephone directories of the 

following cities: Anchorage, AK; Atlanta, GA; West 

Chicago, IL; Denver, CO; Arlington, TX; Gardena 

(Los Angeles), CA; Miami, FL; Parsippany, NJ 

(metropolitan New York City); Seattle, WA; and 

Washington, DC.

PART 830—NOTIFICATION AND 

REPORTING OF AIRCRAFT 

ACCIDENTS OR INCIDENTS AND 

OVERDUE AIRCRAFT, AND 

PRESERVATION OF AIRCRAFT 

WRECKAGE, MAIL, CARGO, AND 

RECORDS 

1. The Authority citation for Part 830 

is proposed to be revised to read as 

follows:

Authority: Independent Safety Board Act 

of 1974, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.); 

Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended (49 

U.S.C. 40101 et seq.).

2. Section 830.2 is amended by 

revising the definition of ‘‘substantial 

damage’’ to read as follows:

§ 830.2 Definitions.

* * * * *

Substantial damage means damage or 

failure which adversely affects the 

structural strength, performance, or 

flight characteristics of the aircraft, and 

which would normally require major 

repair or replacement of the affected 

component. Engine failure or damage 

limited to an engine if only one engine 

fails or is damaged, bent fairings or 

cowling, dented skin, small punctured 

holes in the skin or fabric, ground 

damage to propeller blades, and damage 

to landing gear, wheels, tires, flaps, 

engine accessories, brakes, or wingtips 

are not considered substantial damage

for the purpose of this part.

3. Section 830.5 is amended by 

revising the introductory paragraph, 

revising paragraphs (a), (3), (4), and (5), 

and adding paragraphs (a)(8), (9), and 

(10).

§ 830.5 Immediate notification. 

The operator of any civil aircraft, or 

any public aircraft not operated by the 

Armed Forces or an intelligence agency 

of the United States, or any foreign 

aircraft shall immediately, and by the 

most expeditious means available, 

notify the nearest National 

Transportation Safety Board (Board) 

regional office 1 when:

(a) An aircraft accident or any of the 

following listed incidents occur:

* * * * *

(3) Failure of any internal turbine 

engine component that results in the 

escape of debris other than out the 

exhaust path; 

(4) In-flight fire; 

(5) Aircraft collide in flight;

* * * * *

(8) Structural failure of a propeller 

resulting in the release of all or a 

portion of a propeller blade from an 

aircraft, excluding release caused solely 

by ground contact; 

(9) Loss of information from a 

majority of an aircraft’s certified 

electronic primary displays (excluding 

momentary inaccuracy or flickering 

from display systems that are certified 

installations); 

(10) Any Airborne Collision and 

Avoidance System (ACAS) resolution 

advisories (RA) issued when an aircraft 

is being operated on an instrument 

flight rules (IFR) flight plan.

* * * * *

Dated: December 16, 2004. 

Vicky D’Onofrio, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 04–28148 Filed 12–23–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7533–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a 

Petition To List the Kern Brook 

Lamprey as Threatened or Endangered

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of petition finding.

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

90-day finding on a petition to list the 

Kern brook lamprey (Lampetra hubbsi) 

under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended. We find the petition 

and other information available did not 

present substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

listing the Kern brook lamprey may be 

warranted. Therefore, we will not be 

initiating a further status review in 

response to this petition. We ask the 

public to submit to us any new 

information that becomes available 

concerning the status of or threats to the 

species. This information will help us 

monitor and encourage the conservation 

of the species. 

The Pacific lamprey (Lampetra 

tridentata), river lamprey (Lampetra 

ayresi), and western brook lamprey 

(Lampetra richardsoni) were also 

identified in the petition. However, 

these species are addressed in a separate 

finding, prepared by the Portland Fish 

and Wildlife Office in Oregon, and are 

not addressed in this notice.

DATES: The finding announced in this 

document was made December 27, 

2004. Submit any new information 

concerning this species for our 

consideration at any time.

ADDRESSES: Comments, material, 

information, or questions concerning 

this petition and 90-day finding should 

be sent to the Field Supervisor, 

Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2800 

Cottage Way, Room W–2605, 

Sacramento, CA 95825–1846. The 

petition and supporting information are 

available for public inspection, by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Wayne White, Field Supervisor, 

Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office 

(see ADDRESSES above) (telephone 916/

414–6600; facsimile 916/414–6712).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act), requires that 

we 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. 

We are to base this finding on all 

information available to us at the time 

we make the finding. To the maximum 

extent practicable, we are to make this 

finding within 90 days of our receipt of 

the petition, and publish our notice of 

this finding promptly in the Federal 

Register. 

Our standard for substantial 

information within the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-

day petition finding is ‘‘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)). If we 

find that substantial information was 

presented, we are required to promptly 

commence a review of the status of the 

species, if one has not already been 

initiated, under our internal candidate 

assessment process. 

In making this finding, we relied on 

information provided by the petitioners 

and evaluated that information in 

accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). This 

finding summarizes information 

included in the petition and information 

available to us at the time of the petition 

review. Our process of coming to a 90-

day finding under section 4(b)(3)(A) of 

the Act and section 424.14(b) of our 

regulations is limited to a determination 

of whether the information in the 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Proposed Rules 77153

petition meets the ‘‘substantial 

information’’ threshold. 

We do not conduct additional 

research at this point, nor do we subject 

the petition to rigorous critical review. 

Rather, as the Act and regulations 

contemplate, in coming to a 90-day 

finding, we accept the petitioner’s 

sources and characterizations of the 

information unless we have specific 

information to the contrary. 

Our finding considers whether the 

petition states a reasonable case for 

listing on its face. Thus, our finding 

expresses no view as to the ultimate 

issue of whether the species should be 

listed. We reach a conclusion on that 

issue only after a more thorough review 

of the species’ status. In that review, 

which will take approximately 9 more 

months, we will perform a rigorous, 

critical analysis of the best available 

scientific and commercial information, 

not just the information in the petition. 

We will ensure that the data used to 

make our determination as to the status 

of the species is consistent with the Act 

and Information Quality Act. 

On January 27, 2003, we received a 

petition, dated January 23, 2003, from 

the Siskiyou Regional Education Project 

and 10 other organizations, requesting 

we list the Pacific lamprey, western 

brook lamprey, river lamprey, and Kern 

brook lamprey in Oregon, Washington, 

Idaho, and California. Further, the 

petitioners requested designation of 

critical habitat for the range of the 

species or for distinct population 

segments comprised of one or more 

major river basins. The petition clearly 

identified itself as such and contained 

the names, addresses, and signatures of 

the petitioning organizations’

representatives. The petition included 

the following information for each 

lamprey species: life history 

information; population status and local 

distribution; destruction, modification, 

or curtailment of habitat or range; other 

natural or manmade factors affecting the 

species’ continued existence; predation; 

overutilization for commercial or 

recreational purposes; inadequacy of 

existing mechanisms; and a conclusion 

for each lamprey species. 

In response to the petitioners’

requests to list these species, we sent a 

letter to the petitioners dated March 12, 

2003, explaining that we would not be 

able to address their petition until fiscal 

year 2004. The reason for this delay was 

that existing court orders and settlement 

agreements for other listing actions 

required nearly all of our listing funding 

for fiscal year 2004. In March 2004, we 

received a 60-day notice of intent to sue, 

and on May 26, 2004, received a 

complaint regarding our failure to carry 

out the 90-day and 12-month findings 

on the status of the four species of 

lamprey. On November 23, 2004, we 

reached an agreement with the plaintiffs 

to complete the 90-day finding by 

December 20, 2004, and to complete if 

applicable, the 12-month finding by 

November 15, 2005. 

Species Information

The Kern brook lamprey adult has 

gray-brown sides and dorsal region, a 

white ventral area, unpigmented dorsal 

fins, and some black pigmentation 

restricted to the area around the 

notochord (the cartilaginous rod that 

runs along the back) in the caudal fin 

(Vladykov and Kott 1976). The Kern 

brook lamprey has poorly developed 

plates (teeth) on its oral disc (mouth). In 

adults, the supraoral lamina plate (the 

thin plates above the oral opening) 

typically has two cusps (projections on 

the teeth) (Moyle et al. 1995) with three 

or four (usually four) lateral plates on 

each side of the oral disc (Moyle 2002). 

In addition, this species has 9 to 12 

posterial teeth (average 10.3) (Vladykov 

and Kott 1976). The Kern brook lamprey 

has only three velar tentacles, which 

prevent undesirable objects from 

entering the digestive cavity and are 

present in the junction of the pharynx 

and esophagus. In other lamprey species 

the number of velar tentacles varies 

from 5 to 18 (Vladykov and Kott 1976). 

The Kern brook lamprey has 51 to 57 

trunk myomeres (Moyle 2002), which 

are the ‘‘blocks’’ of muscle mass along 

the body (Moyle et al. 1995). Males have 

a longer urogenital papilla, a small 

conical tube through which gametes are 

expelled, located just ahead of the anal 

fin and usually visible only during, or 

shortly before, spawning (Vlaydykov 

and Kott 1984). Only the females 

develop an anal finlike fold close to 

spawning time, and can be 

distinguished from the males based on 

this morphological characteristic 

(Vladykov and Kott 1984). 

Identification of the Kern brook 

lamprey can be problematic. While 

definitive identifications of the Kern 

brook lamprey can be made through 

genetic analysis (Docker et al. 1999), 

identifications are more commonly 

made by analyzing adult morphological 

characteristics, such as tooth patterns on 

the oral disc (Vladykov and Kott 1976). 

When utilizing morphological 

characteristics to determine a lamprey 

species, adults must be analyzed 

because the juveniles, or ammocoetes, of 

the different lamprey species are not 

readily distinguishable from each other 

(Kostow 2002). For example, the 

number of trunk myomeres is frequently 

counted to determine species. However, 

Kern brook lamprey ammocoetes have 

51 to 57 trunk myomeres, while the 

western brook lamprey has 52 to 67 (52 

to 58 in California populations), making 

these two species indistinguishable 

using this morphological characteristic 

(Moyle 2002). Identification of lamprey 

species is made more difficult because 

lamprey species are in the adult stage 

for a relatively short duration of their 

life. Based on the life history of other 

lamprey species, the Kern brook 

lamprey spends approximately the first 

five years of its life as an ammocoete, 

and approximately one year as an adult, 

which reduces the opportunity to make 

conclusive identifications during the 

adult stage. In addition, 

misidentifications may also occur 

between parasitic and brook lamprey 

species at early stages of metamorphosis 

because they both have eyes and the 

development of the oral discs are still 

incomplete, making these characteristics 

unreliable until further development 

(Kostow 2002; Brian Beale, California 

Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), 

pers. comm. 2004). 

Range and Distribution 

The Kern brook lamprey is endemic to 

the east side of the San Joaquin Valley 

and found only in the San Joaquin River 

drainage in California (Vladykov and 

Kott 1976). This species has been 

reported in the Friant-Kern Canal and 

Merced, San Joaquin, Kings, and 

Kaweah Rivers (Moyle 2002). Brown 

and Moyle (1993) made a considerable 

effort to find Kern brook lamprey in the 

Kern, Tule, Tuolumne, and Stanislaus 

Rivers, which are tributaries in the same 

geographic region as those with Kern 

brook lamprey, but were unsuccessful in 

capturing the species. 

This species was first discovered by 

Vladykov and Kott in February 1972 in 

the Friant-Kern Canal, east of Delano, 

Kern County (Vladykov and Kott 1976). 

The Friant-Kern Canal is connected to 

Millerton Reservoir and the upper San 

Joaquin River through an extensive 

irrigation system (Wang 1986). This 

canal also connects the Kern River with 

the San Joaquin River, which led 

Vladykov and Kott (1976) to believe that 

this species originated in the Kern River 

system. The canal is not considered 

typical habitat for the Kern brook 

lamprey because it is concrete lined and 

flows are greater than the rivers where 

this species is found (Vladykov and Kott 

1976). In 1988, ammocoetes and adults 

were collected by CDFG from the 

siphons of the Friant-Kern Canal when 

they were poisoned with rotenone as 

part of an effort to eradicate white bass 

(Morone chrysops) from the system 

(Brown and Moyle 1993; Moyle et al. 

77154 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

1995). The Kern brook lamprey still 

occurs in the Friant-Kern Canal, but 

spawning habitat is not available within 

the canal, so ammocoetes that enter the 

canal do not reproduce in the canal 

itself (Moyle 2002). 

Between February and March 1977, 

ammocoetes and adult Kern brook 

lamprey were collected from the Merced 

River, below McClure Reservoir, near 

Merced Falls (Vladykov and Kott 1984). 

Brown and Moyle (1993) also collected 

Kern brook lamprey ammocoetes from 

the Merced River during surveys from 

1985 through 1987. Recently, Kern 

brook lamprey ammocoetes have been 

incidentally reported in the Merced 

River during rotary screw trap salmonid 

surveys (Tim Heyne, CDFG, pers. comm. 

2004; Dave Vogel, Natural Resource 

Scientists, pers. comm. 2004). 

Wang (1986) collected ammocoetes 

between July and September of 1979 in 

the upper San Joaquin River 

downstream of Kerckoff Dam to the 

junction with Millerton Lake. The trunk 

myomeres count (53 to 58) of those 

specimens fit the description for 

ammocoetes of either the western brook 

lamprey or Kern brook lamprey. No 

adult specimens of either species were 

captured, but these ammocoetes were 

likely Kern brook lamprey, based on 

their low number of trunk myomeres 

(Brown and Moyle 1993; Moyle et al. 

1995; Moyle 2002). Brown and Moyle 

(1993) also collected Kern brook 

lamprey ammocoetes from the San 

Joaquin River below Friant Dam during 

surveys from 1985 through 1987. We are 

not aware of recent surveys for this 

species on the San Joaquin River. 

Brown and Moyle (1993) collected 

Kern brook lamprey during surveys on 

the Kings River above and below Pine 

Flat Dam. The Kings River is still known 

to support Kern brook lamprey. The 

Kings River Conservation District has 

performed surveys for trout species from 

1990 to the present and has found Kern 

brook lamprey adults and ammocoetes 

both above and below Pine Flat 

Reservoir during all years surveyed (Jeff 

Halstead, Kings River Conservation 

District, pers. comm. 2004).

Brown and Moyle (1993) surveyed 

fish fauna in the lower Kaweah River, 

downstream of the Kaweah Reservoir, 

and collected Kern brook lamprey 

ammocoetes from 1985 through 1986. 

We are not aware of recent surveys on 

the Kaweah River for this species. 

Habitat 

The Kern brook lamprey is known to 

occur in four of the San Joaquin River 

tributaries emerging from the west side 

of the Sierra Nevada mountains and has 

been observed at elevations of 100 to 

1,000 feet (30 to 305 meters) (Moyle et 

al. 1995; Moyle 2002). This species 

commonly occupies sand, gravel, and 

rubble substrates (Moyle et al. 1995). It 

has been reported at stream depths of 12 

to 43 inches (in) (30 to 110 centimeters 

(cm)) (Moyle 2002). Adults seek riffles 

with gravel for spawning and rubble for 

cover, while ammocoetes are typically 

found in sandy-bottomed backwaters, 

shallow river edges, and shallow pools, 

and along edges of runs where there are 

low stream velocities, where they 

remain buried with their heads 

protruding above the substrate for 

feeding (Moyle et al. 1995). 

Reproduction and Growth 

Little information regarding the life 

history of the Kern brook lamprey is 

available, but it is presumably similar to 

the western brook lamprey (Moyle 

2002). Adults are non-predatory, and 

feeding is confined to the ammocoete 

stage (Moyle 2002). Because recently 

transformed Kern brook lamprey adults 

have been collected in the spring, it is 

likely that Kern brook lamprey undergo 

metamorphosis in the fall (Moyle et al. 

1995; Moyle 2002). During 

metamorphosis, the Kern brook lamprey 

develops eyes and more distinctive fins, 

and the oral disc enlarges (Kostow 

2002). As with other lamprey species, 

the adults do not eat and they shrink in 

size following metamorphosis 

(Vladykov and Kott 1976). Adults are 3 

to 5.5 in (8 to 14 cm) and ammocoetes 

are 4 to 6 in (10 to 15 cm) in length 

(Moyle 2002). 

Based on the life history of western 

brook lamprey, it is likely that the Kern 

brook lamprey ammocoetes overwinter 

in burrows while they undergo 

metamorphosis in mud and sand 

substrates, emerge in the spring as 

sexually mature adults after completing 

metamorphosis, and then migrate to 

spawning areas (Moyle 2002). Adults 

build nests in the gravel-bottomed 

substrate, spawn, and then die (Moyle 

2002). The eggs are sticky and dense, 

and they are deposited in nests prepared 

by spawning adults. The eggs are then 

buried by the adults beneath sand and 

gravel. Based on the life history of the 

western brook lamprey (Kostow 2002), 

the newly hatched larva of the Kern 

brook lamprey likely spend another 

week to a month in the nest. The 

ammocoetes then emerge and are 

carried downstream to mud and sandbottomed backwaters where they 

burrow into stream sediments (Moyle 

2002). If life history is comparable to 

other brook lamprey, Kern brook 

lamprey live for 4 to 5 years as 

ammocoetes (Moyle et al. 1995) and 

would therefore live up to 6 years or 

more after completing metamorphosis 

and spawning as adults. When 

encountered, the ammocoetes are 

usually locally abundant (Brown and 

Moyle 1993) and can be found in sand 

and mud substrates, where they remain 

buried with their heads protruding 

above the substrate and feeding by 

filtering diatoms and other microorganisms from the water (Moyle 1995). 

Discussion of Listing Factors 

Section 4 of the Act and its 

implementing regulations (50 CFR 424) 

set forth the procedures for adding 

species to the Federal list of endangered 

and threatened species. A species may 

be determined to be an endangered or 

threatened species due to one or more 

of the five factors described in section 

4(a)(1) of the Act. In the following 

discussion, we respond to each of the 

major assertions made in the petition, as 

well as our analysis of other information 

in our files, organized by the Act’s 

listing factors. The five listing factors 

include: (1) The present threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (2) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (3) disease and predation; (4) 

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; and (5) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. The petition provided 

specific information regarding the Kern 

brook lamprey in its discussion of 

poisoning, water diversions, and 

channelization, under Factor A. We 

have determined that the threat of 

poisoning would be more appropriately 

addressed under Factor E, as a natural 

or manmade factor affecting the 

continued existence of the species. The 

petition also specifically addressed the 

Kern brook lamprey in its discussion of 

the inadequacy of regulatory 

mechanisms to manage dam operations 

within the Kern brook lamprey’s range, 

under Factor D. These are the only 

threats for which the petition 

specifically addresses the Kern brook 

lamprey, as the petition primarily 

focuses on the Pacific lamprey. This 90-

day finding is not a status assessment 

and does constitute a status review 

under the Act. 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of its Habitat or Range 

The petition discusses the following 

threats under Factor A: (1) Artificial 

barriers; (2) road culverts; (3) water 

diversions; (4) poisoning; (5) dredging; 

(6) streambed scouring and degradation; 

(7) channelization; and (8) ocean 

conditions. The petition provided 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Proposed Rules 77155

specific information regarding the Kern 

brook lamprey in its discussions of 

poisoning, water diversions, and 

channelization. For the threats 

described under Factor A, the petition 

states that all of the factors affecting the 

Pacific lamprey would also affect the 

Kern brook lamprey, so we have 

analyzed all of the factors listed under 

Factor A, except for ocean conditions, 

which does not apply to the Kern brook 

lamprey because it is not an 

anadromous (migrates to the ocean and 

spawns in freshwater tributaries) 

species and the threat of poisoning 

which was addressed under Factor E. 

Artificial Barriers and Road Culverts

Information provided in the petition:

The petition lists dams, culverts, or 

other artificial barriers as a threat to the 

Pacific lamprey. The petition did not 

provide information regarding the 

effects that dams, culverts, or other 

artificial barriers may have on the Kern 

brook lamprey, including the extent to 

which artificial barriers may threaten 

population numbers or distribution of 

the Kern brook lamprey. 

Analysis of the information provided 

in the petition and information in our 

files: Artificial barriers may prevent 

upstream dispersal for adults because 

lampreys are not strong swimmers, are 

unable to jump, and their movement is 

determined by flow velocity (Kostow 

2002). It is likely that if artificial barriers 

are present within the range of the Kern 

brook lamprey, and if encountered, the 

Kern brook lamprey would not likely be 

able to negotiate upstream passage 

around the barriers. However, we are 

not aware of information describing the 

number, distribution, or location of 

dams or artificial barriers, and therefore, 

the overall extent to which these 

artificial structures may affect Kern 

brook lamprey movement. Therefore, we 

are unable to determine if dams, 

culverts, or other artificial barriers have 

caused a reduction in the range or 

population size of the species. 

Water Diversions 

Information provided in the petition:

The petition stated that water diversions 

pose a threat to the Kern brook lamprey. 

The petition supports this assertion by 

stating that the siphons of the FriantKern Canal mimic habitat preferred by 

Kern brook lamprey ammocoetes, and 

the species is not able to successfully 

reproduce in the canal due to a lack of 

spawning habitat. 

Analysis of information provided in 

the petition and information in our files:

We are unaware of the extent or number 

of Kern brook lamprey which may be 

lost as a result of ammocoetes entering 

into the Friant-Kern Canal system 

through the siphons. Therefore, we are 

unable to determine if ammocoetes 

entering the siphons has caused a 

substantial reduction in Kern brook 

lamprey population numbers. 

Information in our files does indicate 

that the loss of habitat through water 

diversions for irrigation may have an 

effect on Kern brook lamprey 

population numbers. Most of the water 

that once flowed into the San Joaquin 

River has been diverted for irrigation. 

The limited remaining water is being 

used for human population growth in 

the region, especially in the vicinity of 

the cities of Modesto, Fresno, and 

Bakersfield (Brown and Moyle 1993). 

This reduction in stream flow may 

result in a loss in both the range and 

numbers of this species. However, we 

are unaware of information quantifying 

the loss of habitat that has occurred 

within the range of the Kern brook 

lamprey, or to what degree this threat 

has reduced the range or population size 

of this species. In addition, we are not 

aware of information describing how 

future population growth in those cities 

will threaten the population size and 

range of the Kern brook lamprey. 

Dredging 

Information provided in the petition:

The petition provided information on 

threats from dredging to lamprey 

species in general, and cited specific 

examples from Oregon. Kern brook 

lamprey are not addressed in this 

discussion. The petition indicates that 

most lamprey die after passing through 

dredges (Kostow 2002). 

Analysis of information provided in 

the petition and information in our files:

We are not aware of information 

detailing the extent that dredging 

activities occur in streams within the 

range of the Kern brook lamprey, or 

specific information regarding the 

threats that these factors pose to the 

continued survival of the Kern brook 

lamprey. Therefore, it is unknown at 

this time if dredging activities have 

significantly affected the population 

status or distribution of the Kern brook 

lamprey, or are likely to do so in the 

future. 

Streambed Scouring and Degradation

Information provided in the petition:

The petition’s discussion of streamed 

scouring did not specifically address the 

Kern brook lamprey, but discussed 

logging practices that scour streams to 

bedrock, and the effects that these 

practices have on lamprey species in 

general. The petition focused on logging 

practices in Oregon, and cited examples 

on the central coast of Oregon and in the 

Umpqua River basin. 

Analysis of information provided in 

the petition and information in our files:

We are not aware of information 

regarding the extent to which logging 

practices that result in streambed 

scouring occur in streams within the 

range of the Kern brook lamprey, or if 

these activities occur at all. In addition, 

there is a lack of information 

determining whether these activities, if 

they occur, have caused a substantial 

reduction in population size or range for 

the species. Therefore, it is unknown at 

this time if logging practices that result 

in streambed scouring have threatened 

or have the potential to threaten in the 

future the population status or 

distribution of the Kern brook lamprey. 

Stream Channelization and Destruction 

of Riparian Vegetation 

Information provided by the petition:

Similar to the petition’s discussion of 

streambed scouring, the petition’s 

discussion of stream channelization and 

destruction of riparian habitat did not 

specifically address the Kern brook 

lamprey, but discussed the effects that 

many activities, including stream 

channelization, floodplain filling, and 

destruction of riparian habitat, have on 

lamprey species in general. According 

to the petition, these activities are 

widespread in low gradient stream areas 

favored by lamprey species. The 

petition indicated that these activities 

result in water temperatures that are too 

warm for lamprey species, a loss in 

depositional areas favored by larval 

lamprey, and a loss in wetlands, side 

channels, back eddies, and beaver 

ponds. The petition did not provide 

information specific to the Kern brook 

lamprey regarding these threats, or 

information describing to what extent 

these activities have occurred or are 

likely to occur within the range of the 

Kern brook lamprey. 

Analysis of information provided in 

the petition and information in our files:

Development along the west side of the 

Sierra Nevada foothills, where the Kern 

brook lamprey occurs, has accelerated 

greatly, which has resulted in changes 

in land and water use (Moyle and 

Nichols 1973, 1974). There is a lack of 

information determining to what extent 

these activities have reduced the 

population size or range of the species, 

and if activities that cause stream 

channelization and riparian degradation 

have significantly affected the 

population status or distribution of the 

Kern brook lamprey, or is likely to do 

so in the future. Without this 

information we are unable to determine 

that stream channelization and 

77156 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

degradation of riparian habitat threaten 

to substantially reduce the population 

or range of the species. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

We concur with the petitioner’s 

opinion that the Kern brook lamprey is 

not known to be harvested for 

commercial or recreational purposes. 

The Service did not locate information 

regarding the importance of the Kern 

brook lamprey to Tribes in the range of 

this species, and this information was 

not provided in the petition. 

C. Disease and Predation 

Information provided in the petition:

The petitioners stated that the Pacific 

lamprey, river lamprey, western brook 

lamprey, and Kern brook lamprey are all 

vulnerable to predation by non-native 

fish species, especially in California, 

where conditions are favorable for 

predator fish from eastern states. The 

petition did not provide any 

information regarding the threats of 

disease to the Kern brook lamprey. 

Analysis of information provided in 

the petition and information in our files:

Healthy populations of native fishes are 

in decline throughout California, in 

large part because of an increase in nonnative predators (Moyle and Nichols 

1973, 1974). Human activities in the 

lower elevation foothills of the San 

Joaquin drainage tributaries have led to 

an increase in stream habitat alteration. 

These alterations have mostly been in 

the form of water impoundment, 

reduced stream flows, and siltation, 

which creates habitat that is ideal for 

predatory non-native fish (Moyle and 

Nichols 1973, 1974; Brown and Moyle 

1993). However, we are unaware of 

information describing the extent to 

which non-native fish species have 

affected Kern brook lamprey population 

size or their range, and this information 

was not provided in the petition. It is 

unknown at this time if non-native fish 

species have caused a substantial 

reduction in population size or range of 

the species or are likely to do so in the 

future. 

The petition did not provide 

information regarding the threat that 

disease may pose to the Kern brook 

lamprey, and we are not aware of any 

diseases at this time that threaten this 

species. 

D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

The petition stated that State and 

Federal agencies have not adequately 

regulated dam building, logging, 

mining, water withdrawals, road 

building, and construction activities, all 

of which have led to a decline in 

population numbers and range in 

lamprey species. The petition divided 

its discussion of regulatory mechanisms 

into the following categories: water law 

and flow regulations, passage at dams 

and culverts, harvest and escapement 

goals, private and Federal logging, and 

mining and dredging activities. The 

only category for which the petition 

specifically addresses the Kern brook 

lamprey is water law and stream flow 

regulation. 

Water Law and Stream Flow Regulation

Information in the petition: The 

petition described various threats posed 

by dams, water irrigation, and fish 

screens, and stated that State agencies 

have not been able to ensure that 

aquatic species such as lamprey have 

adequate flows for migration and long 

freshwater rearing periods. According to 

the petition, flows and habitats of lower 

reaches of rivers of the San Joaquin 

River drainage are not managed for the 

needs of Kern brook lamprey. 

Analysis of information provided in 

the petition and information in our files:

There are dams on all of the primary 

tributaries of the San Joaquin River 

drainage. All collections of Kern brook 

lamprey have been below the lowermost 

major dams, with the exception of the 

Kings River population, which is found 

above Pine Flat Reservoir. These dams 

may cause fluctuations or sudden 

reductions in stream flows, which may 

isolate or kill ammocoetes (Moyle 2002). 

According to Moyle (2002), if the Kern 

brook lamprey is going to persist, flows 

and habitats of lower reaches of rivers 

of the San Joaquin drainage should be 

managed with the consideration of the 

species’ biological requirements. 

However, at this time we are not aware 

of how the operations of the four major 

dams are affecting the Kern brook 

lamprey, and if the operations of these 

dams could substantially reduce or 

extirpate the species. In addition, we do 

not have information at this time 

regarding the specific spatial 

distribution of the Kern brook lamprey, 

and how changes in stream flows affect 

this species. Without this information, it 

is speculative to state that a single 

action, such as a rapid drawdown in 

stream flows, could cause a significant 

reduction in the range or population of 

the species. While it is possible that 

Kern brook lamprey populations have 

been reduced by the management of 

stream flows from these dams, the 

petition provides no evidence that the 

operation of these dams has led to a 

significant decline in either population 

sizes or range of the species, or is likely 

to do so in the future. 

Through diverting nearly all of the 

San Joaquin River’s flow, Friant Dam’s 

stream flow management on the San 

Joaquin River has likely led to a 

reduction in native fishes (Natural 

Resource Defense Council, et al. v. Kirk 

Rodgers (Case No. CIV–S–88–1658 LKK/

GGH)). In this case, the court found that 

this absence of water in the San Joaquin 

River has led to a reduction in many 

native fish, including the Pacific 

lamprey and western brook lamprey. 

While the court did not specifically list 

the Kern brook lamprey as a native fish 

affected by the dam, it is likely to be 

affected in the same manner as the other 

lamprey species. Therefore, Friant Dam 

may have caused a reduction in the 

range and distribution of the Kern brook 

lamprey because of a lack of stream 

flows, but there is no information 

available to us or provided in the 

petition that quantifies a reduction in 

the range and distribution of this 

species, if any. 

Passage at Dams and Culverts 

Information in the petition: The 

petition provided information regarding 

lamprey species in general, and did not 

specifically address the Kern brook 

lamprey. The petition stated that current 

laws and regulations do not require fish 

ladders, fish screens, and road culverts 

to effectively pass adult lamprey species 

upstream or provide for safe passage of 

ammocoetes and young adults 

downstream. 

Analysis of information provided in 

the petition and information in our files:

The petition reiterates the threats 

discussed in its earlier discussion of 

artificial barriers under Factor A. Please 

refer to the discussion of Artificial 

Barriers, under Factor A described 

above. We are not aware of, and the 

petition did not provide information 

that indicates that a lack of regulatory 

mechanisms on fish passage has 

significantly reduced Kern brook 

lamprey population numbers and 

distribution. Because of this lack of 

information, we are unable to determine 

that the current regulatory mechanisms 

have led to a significant reduction in the 

range and population size of the species. 

Harvest, Escapement Goals 

Information in the petition: The 

petition focused on the harvest and 

escapement goals for the Pacific 

lamprey, and did not provide 

information that specifically addressed 

the Kern brook lamprey. The petition 

stated that the current laws and 

regulations pertaining to harvest and 

escapement goals are not adequate to 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Proposed Rules 77157

protect lamprey species. The petition 

also stated that the Kern brook lamprey 

is not known to be harvested for 

commercial or recreational purposes in 

its discussion under Factor B. 

Analysis of information provided in 

the petition and information in our files:

We concur with the petitioner’s opinion 

that the Kern brook lamprey is not 

known to be harvested for commercial 

or recreational purposes. 

Logging Activities 

Information in the petition: The 

petition did not provide information 

that specifically addressed the Kern 

brook lamprey, and focuses on Pacific 

lamprey in Oregon. The petition 

discusses the Northwest Forest Plan and 

the Oregon Forest Protection Act, and 

cites examples from rivers in Oregon, 

including the Smith River, Illinois 

River, and Umpqua River. The petition 

indicated that the current laws and 

regulations do not adequately protect 

lamprey species from logging activities.

Analysis of information provided in 

the petition and informatin in our files:

We are not aware of information that 

indicates that a lack of regulatory 

mechanisms on logging activities has 

substantially reduced Kern brook 

lamprey population numbers and 

distribution. We also do not have 

information regarding the extent that 

logging activities affect the Kern brook 

lamprey, both within its range and 

upstream of areas where it is known to 

occur. Because of this lack of 

information, we are unable to determine 

that the current regulatory mechanisms 

on logging activities have led to a 

reduction in the range and population 

size of the species, or that a reduction 

in the range and population of this 

species is likely to occur in the future. 

Mining and Dredging Activities 

Information in the petition: The 

petition reiterated the threats described 

in its discussion of dredging under 

Factor A, and indicated that the current 

regulatory mechanisms do not 

adequately protect lamprey species from 

mining and dredging activities. The 

petition did not provide any 

information specific to the Kern brook 

lamprey, and focuses on lamprey 

species in general. 

Analysis of information provided in 

the petition and information in our files:

We are not aware of information that 

indicates that a lack of regulatory 

mechanisms on mining and dredging 

activities has significantly reduced Kern 

brook lamprey population numbers and 

distribution. We also do not have 

information regarding the extent that 

mining and dredging activities occur 

within the range of the Kern brook 

lamprey. Because of this lack of 

information, we are unable to determine 

that the current regulatory mechanisms 

on mining and dredging activities have 

led to a reduction in the range and 

population size of the species, or that 

significant reductions in the range and 

distribution of Kern brook lamprey is 

likely to occur in the future. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Continued Existence 

According to the petitioners, a lack of 

monitoring data, lack of taxonomic 

determinations between lamprey 

species, and vulnerability to high 

density lamprey concentration areas are 

other threats to the Kern brook lamprey. 

We have also addressed the threat of 

poisoning under Factor E. 

Lack of Monitoring Data and Lack of 

Taxonomic Determinations 

Information provided in the petition:

The petition indicated that data 

gathering by State and Federal agencies 

is inadequate to determine population 

trends and identify necessary 

conservation measures, and that most 

monitoring is done in conjunction with 

salmonid monitoring. During the 

petition’s discussion of the need for 

more monitoring data and taxonomic 

determinations, the petition did not 

address the Kern brook lamprey 

specifically, and focuses on lamprey 

species in Oregon. 

Analysis of information provided in 

the petition and information in our files:

There is a need for taxonomic clarity for 

all lamprey species, as well as a need for 

more complete monitoring data (Kostow 

2002; P. Moyle, pers. comm. 2004); the 

same could be said for thousands of 

other species. However, lack of 

monitoring data and taxonomic 

clarifications, in themselves, do not 

pose a threat to the continued existence 

of the Kern brook lamprey. 

Vulnerability of High Density Areas 

Information provided in the petition:

The Kern brook lamprey is not 

specifically addressed in this 

discussion. The petition describes the 

tendency of lamprey species to be 

locally dense in certain areas. According 

to the petition, a local habitat 

disturbance, such as a chemical spill or 

dredging operation, in an area that is 

densely populated by lamprey species, 

could cause a major reduction in 

population numbers.

Analysis of information provided in 

the petition and information in our files:

According to Moyle (2002), Kern brook 

lamprey ammocoetes are locally 

abundant when found. Because of this 

species’ propensity to congregate in 

high densities in particular locations, 

they may be vulnerable to localized 

habitat disturbances (Kostow 2002). 

Furthermore, if a local population of 

Kern brook lamprey is extirpated and 

the species is unable to recolonize the 

area, the range and distribution of the 

species would be reduced (Brown and 

Moyle 1993). If enough local 

extirpations occur, this could lead to the 

eventual extinction of the species 

(Vladykov and Kott 1976, 1984). 

However, we do not have enough 

information at this time to conclude that 

the Kern brook lamprey is at risk of 

substantial reductions in population or 

range because of it’s propensity to 

congregate in high densities. Based on 

the information available to us, it is 

speculative at this time to state that a 

single event, such as a chemical spill or 

dredging operation, could cause the 

extirpation of the species from an entire 

river system, or significantly reduce the 

population or range of the species. 

The petition did not provide, and we 

are not aware of information on the 

precise locations inhabited by Kern 

brook lamprey ammocoetes. We also do 

not have information regarding the 

locations of activities such as dredging, 

or activities that could cause a 

poisoning event, in relation to the areas 

where Kern brook lamprey are known to 

congregate. In addition, we do not have 

information detailing how the 

operations of the four major dams are 

affecting the Kern brook lamprey, and if 

the operations of these dams could 

substantially reduce or extirpate the 

species (see Factor A above), and if the 

operations of these dams could 

substantially reduce or extirpate the 

species. Without this information, it is 

speculative to state that a single action, 

such as a chemical spill, rapid 

drawdown in stream flows, or a 

dredging operation, could cause the 

extirpation of the species from an entire 

river system or significantly reduce the 

Kern brook lamprey’s population size or 

range. 

Poisoning 

Information provided in the petition:

Poisoning is described in the petition as 

a major threat to the Kern brook 

lamprey. The petition cites the only 

known occurrence of poisoning that 

resulted in the deaths of Kern brook 

lamprey, when ammocoetes and adults 

were collected by CDFG from the 

siphons of the Friant-Kern Canal when 

they were poisoned with rotenone as 

part of an effort to eradicate white bass 

from the canal system in 1988 (Brown 

and Moyle 1993; Moyle et al. 1995). 

77158 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

Analysis of information provided in 

the petition and information in our files:

The use of rotenone in the Friant-Kern 

Canal has not occurred since 1988, and 

there are no future plans for this 

practice to occur again (Peter Moyle, 

University of California-Davis, pers. 

comm. 2004). Other than this one-time 

poisoning event, the petition did not 

provide any information regarding the 

use of chemicals or poisons within close 

proximity to known occurrences of the 

Kern brook lamprey. Because of a lack 

of information regarding activities that 

could cause a poisoning event within 

the range of the Kern brook lamprey, as 

well as a lack of information on the 

spatial distribution patterns of the 

species, it is speculative to state that a 

single event, such as a chemical spill, 

could cause the extirpation of the 

species from an entire river system, or 

significantly reduce the population or 

range of the species. 

Summary 

The petition to list the four lamprey 

species primarily provides information 

about the Pacific lamprey, and 

information specific to the Kern brook 

lamprey is lacking. The petition did not 

present substantial information that 

indicates rangewide declines, a 

reduction in population numbers, or 

threats to existing Kern brook lamprey 

populations that place them in danger of 

extinction now or in the foreseeable 

future. 

According to the petition, many of the 

threats to the Pacific lamprey would 

also apply to the Kern brook lamprey. 

Threats to the Pacific lamprey, as 

described by the petition, included 

dams and artificial barriers, passage at 

road culverts, dredging, streambed 

scouring and degradation from logging 

activities, poisoning, water diversions, 

channelization, and ocean conditions. 

Of these reported threats, there are only 

four for which the petition specifically 

addresses the Kern brook lamprey 

(poisoning, water diversions, 

channelization, and lack of regulatory 

mechanisms regarding water law and 

stream flow regulation). While these 

threats may affect populations of this 

species, the information provided in the 

petition was speculative in nature and 

not substantiated. The petition did not 

provide specific information to 

document the degree that the species 

has been affected by these threats, or if 

these threats have led to a significant 

decline in the range or distribution of 

the species or are likely to do so in the 

future. 

There is a lack of survey information 

supporting reliable population and 

distribution estimates for this recently 

described species. The petition did not 

provide historical or current data to 

compare abundance of the Kern brook 

lamprey in any of the rivers where it is 

known to occur. We are not aware of 

quantitative documentation from 

surveys that shows declines in Kern 

brook lamprey populations or a 

reduction in range. In addition, the 

surveys that we are aware of which have 

recorded Kern brook lamprey, did not 

use a consistent level of effort in 

collecting Kern brook lamprey, occurred 

over periods of time that were too short 

in duration to establish trends, or used 

data that may be based on ammocoete 

counts where the surveyed species, 

whether the Kern brook lamprey, 

western brook lamprey, or Pacific 

lamprey were misidentified. Therefore, 

population and distribution trends at 

this time are not known. 

All of the known occurrences of Kern 

brook lamprey, with the exception of 

the population above Pine Flat 

Reservoir on the Kings River, are below 

major dams. The petition stated that 

these dams are not managed to meet the 

biological needs of the Kern brook 

lamprey. However, the petition did not 

provide information on how stream 

flows below the four dams are managed 

and how these management practices 

affect the population status and 

distribution of the Kern brook lamprey. 

The petition provides no evidence that 

the operation of these dams has led to 

a significant decline in either 

population sizes or range of the species, 

or is likely to do so in the future.

Finding 

We have reviewed the petition and 

supporting literature, as well as other 

literature and information available in 

our files. The petition and other 

information available did not present 

substantial information that indicates 

rangewide declines, a substantial 

reduction in population numbers, or 

substantiated threats to existing 

populations that rise to the level that 

indicate the Kern brook lamprey is 

either in imminent danger of extinction, 

or likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future. 

We will continue to monitor available 

information on the species, and 

maintain the option of initiating listing 

procedures in the future should such an 

action become necessary. We ask the 

public to submit to us any new 

information that becomes available 

concerning the status of this species. If 

you wish to provide materials 

concerning this finding, submit them to 

the Field Supervisor, Sacramento Fish 

and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES

section above). 

Literature Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

herein is available, upon request, from 

the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office 

(see ADDRESSES section above). 

Author 

The primary author of this notice is 

the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife 

Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(see ADDRESSES section above).

Authority: The authority for this action is 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Dated: December 20, 2004. 

Marshall P. Jones, Jr., 

Deputy Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 04–28162 Filed 12–23–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a 

Petition To List Three Species of 

Lampreys as Threatened or 

Endangered

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of petition finding.

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

90-day finding on a petition to list three 

species of lampreys: Pacific lamprey 

(Lampetra tridentata), western brook 

lamprey (Lampetra richardsoni), and 

river lamprey (Lampetra ayresii), as 

threatened or endangered under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). We find that the petition 

and additional information in our files 

does not present substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

listing these species may be warranted. 

We will not be initiating a further status 

review in response to this petition. We 

ask the public to submit to us any new 

information that becomes available 

concerning the status of or threats to the 

species. This information will help us 

monitor and encourage the conservation 

of these species. 

The Kern brook lamprey (Lampetra 

hubbsi) was also identified in the 

petition. However, this species is being 

addressed in a separate finding, which 

is being prepared by the Sacramento 

Fish and Wildlife Office in California, 

and is not addressed in this notice.

DATES: The finding announced in this 

document was made on December 27,