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, 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Proposed Rules 77159

2004. You may submit new information 

concerning this species for our 

consideration at any time.

ADDRESSES: Data, information, or 

questions concerning this petition or 

this 90-day finding should be sent to 

Kemper McMaster, State Supervisor, 

Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, 2600 SE. 98th 

Avenue, Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266. 

The petition finding and supporting 

information are available for public 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours at the above 

address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bianca Streif, Lamprey Coordinator, 

Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see 

ADDRESSES section above) (telephone 

503/231–6179; facsimile 503/231–6195).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires 

that we make a finding on whether a 

petition to list, delist, or reclassify a 

species presents substantial information 

to indicate that the petitioned action 

may be warranted. To the maximum 

extent practicable, this finding is to be 

made within 90 days of receipt of the 

petition, and the finding is to be 

published promptly in the Federal 

Register. 

This finding summarizes information 

included in the petition and information 

available to us at the time of the petition 

review. Our review of 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 petition meets the 

‘‘substantial information’’ threshold. 

Our standard for substantial information 

within the Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) with regard to a 90-day listing 

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)). 

We do not conduct additional 

research at this point, nor do we subject 

the petition to rigorous critical review. 

Rather, at the 90-day finding stage, we 

accept the petitioner’s sources and 

characterizations of the information, to 

the extent that they appear to be based 

on accepted scientific principles (such 

as citing published and peer reviewed 

articles, or studies done in accordance 

with valid methodologies), unless we 

have specific information to the 

contrary. 

On January 27, 2003, we received the 

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. The petitioners 

also requested designation of critical 

habitat for the range of the species or for 

distinct population segments (DPSs) 

comprised of one or more major river 

basins. The petition identified itself as 

such and contained the names, 

addresses, and signatures of the 

petitioning organizations’

representative. The petition provided 

information relating to one or more of 

the petitioned lamprey species, 

including: 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 petition to list these 

species, we sent a letter to the 

petitioners dated March 12, 2003, 

stating that we would not be able to 

address their petition before fiscal year 

2004, which was to begin October 1, 

2003. The reason for this delay was that 

complying with 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, a complaint regarding our failure 

to carry out the 90-day and 12-month 

findings on the status of the four species 

of lampreys. On November 23, 2004, we 

reached an agreement with the plaintiffs 

to complete the 90-day finding by 

December 20, 2004, and, if appropriate, 

to complete the 12-month finding by 

November 15, 2005. 

General Biology 

The petitioned lampreys belong to the 

genus Lampetra in the family 

Petromyzontidae and subfamily 

Petromyzontinae, a primitive group of 

fishes that are eel-like in form but lack 

the jaws and paired fins. These species 

have a round sucker-like mouth (oral 

disc), no scales, and breathing holes 

instead of gills. Most lamprey species 

have a similar life cycle: all begin life 

in freshwater, but some are anadromous 

(going from ocean to freshwater 

tributaries to spawn). In the beginning 

of their life cycle, the lamprey eggs 

hatch and the young ammocoetes 

(larvae) drift downstream to areas of low 

velocity and silt or sand substrate. They 

remain burrowed in the stream bottom, 

living as filter feeders for 2 to 7 years, 

filter-feeding on algae and detritus 

(Kostow 2002; Moyle 2002). 

Metamorphosis of ammocoetes to 

macropthalmia (juvenile phase) occurs 

gradually over several months as they 

develop eyes, teeth, and become free 

swimming. Depending on the species, 

macropthalmia mature into adults and 

then either begin their migration to salt 

water or remain in fresh water (Kostow 

2002; Moyle 2002). Lampreys lack 

paired fins and their elongated body 

shape causes them to swim by using an 

undulatory (snakelike) movement (Mesa 

et al. 2002; Moyle 2002) and they do not 

have swim bladders that allow them to 

maintain neutral buoyancy and must, 

therefore, swim constantly or hold fast 

to objects to maintain their position 

(Liao 2002; Mesa et al. 2002). 

Pacific and river lampreys are 

parasitic as adults and feed on a variety 

of marine and anadromous fish. 

Nonparasitic western brook lampreys 

remain in fresh water, not feeding as 

adults, resulting in a short life span 

(Wydoski and Whitney 2003). After the 

adult feeding phase, both Pacific and 

river lampreys migrate to spawning 

areas and cease feeding. Their degree of 

fidelity to their natal streams is 

unknown. Adult lampreys spawn in 

gravel bottomed streams, at the 

upstream end of riffle habitat, typically 

above suitable ammocoete habitat 

(Moyle 2002). Both sexes construct the 

nests, often moving stones with their 

mouths. After the eggs are deposited 

and fertilized, the adults typically die 

within 3 to 36 days (Kostow 2002). 

Pacific, river, and western brook 

lamprey ammocoetes are nearly 

indistinguishable from each other. 

Although there is some color 

differentiation between the species, this 

characteristic is not reliable (Kostow 

2002). Moyle (2002) states, 

‘‘Classification and identification of 

lampreys depends largely on the 

number, structure, and position of 

horny plates (teeth) of the sucking disc 

found in adult lampreys.’’

Pacific Lamprey 

Adult Pacific lampreys are 

characterized by the presence of 3 large 

sharp teeth (cusps) and posterior teeth 

on the oral disc (Wydoski and Whitney 

1979; Moyle 2002). The two dorsal fins 

are slightly separated and the second 

dorsal fin is continuous with the caudal 

fin. The anal fin, distinctive in females, 

is lacking in males. The ammocoetes at 

age 5 ranges in size from approximately 

4 to 8.5 inches (in) (9.5 to 22 

centimeters (cm)), depending on the 

geographic area (Wydoski and Whitney 

2003). 

77160 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

Pacific lampreys are found in streams 

from Hokkaido Island, Japan, and along 

the Pacific Rim, including Alaska, 

Canada, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, 

and California to Punta Canoas, Baja 

California, Mexico (Nawa et al. 2003). 

Pacific lampreys are the most widely 

distributed lamprey species on the west 

coast of the United States (U.S.). Their 

distribution includes major river 

systems such as the Fraser, Columbia, 

Klamath-Trinity, Eel, and SacramentoSan Joaquin Rivers. Pacific lamprey 

distribution patterns are similar to that 

of anadromous salmonids (Simpson and 

Wallace 1982; Close et al. 1995; Close et 

al. 2002). 

Adult Pacific lampreys parasitize a 

wide variety of ocean fishes, including 

Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.), 

flatfish (such as Pleuronectes spp. and 

Platichthys spp.), rockfish (Sebastes

spp.), and pollock (Theragra 

chalcogramma), and are preyed upon by 

sharks, sea lions, and other marine 

animals. They have been caught in 

depths ranging from 300 to 2,600 feet 

(ft) (90 to 800 meters (m)), and as far as 

62 miles off the coast (mi) (100 

kilometers (km)) in ocean haul nets 

(Close et al. 2002). 

After spending 1 to 3 years in the 

marine environment, Pacific lampreys 

return to freshwater between February 

and June (Kostow 2002; Moyle 2002). 

They are thought to overwinter and 

remain in freshwater habitat for 

approximately 1 year before spawning. 

In freshwater they may shrink in size up 

to 20 percent (Beamish 1980). Pacific 

lampreys primarily migrate upstream at 

night and adult size at the time of 

migration ranges from about 15 to 24.5 

in (38 to 62 cm). They spawn between 

March and July, depending upon 

location within their range (Beamish 

1980). Fecundity is high but variable, 

with females producing between 20,000 

and 200,000 eggs (Moyle 2002). After 

the eggs are fertilized and deposited in 

the nest, embryos hatch in 

approximately 19 days at 59° Fahrenheit 

(F) (15° Celsius (C)). Once the 

ammocoetes reach about 6 in (15 cm), 

they begin metamorphosis into 

macropthalmia (Moyle 2002; Wydoski 

and Whitney 2003). 

Population Distribution and Trends 

The petition provides both anecdotal 

and empirical information on Pacific 

lamprey occurrences and documented 

declines in Oregon, Washington, and 

California; less information for British 

Columbia and Alaska; and little 

information for Idaho, Mexico, or the 

extensive area of their range from 

Alaska to Japan. In our review of the 

petition and other information, we 

found additional information for Idaho 

and northwestern California that 

suggests a decline in Pacific lamprey 

abundance and reduction in distribution 

(Cochnauer and Claire 2004; Service, in 

litt. 2004a). 

Some data indicating a decline in 

Pacific lampreys on the west coast of the 

U.S. come from dam window counts 

and stream salmonid surveys. 

Limitations of these data for evaluating 

trends include uncertainty about 

consistency in reporting lampreys, and 

a lack of standardized counts at dams 

over time designed to document 

lamprey (Close et al. 1995). In addition, 

data based on ammocoete counts can 

include the similar-appearing western 

brook and river lampreys. 

Historically, Pacific lampreys were 

thought to be distributed wherever 

salmon and steelhead once occurred 

(Simpson and Wallace 1982; Close et al. 

1995; Close et al. 2002). Based on the 

information in the petition and Service 

files, the distribution of the Pacific 

lamprey has been reduced in specific 

drainages in the 4 States identified in 

the petition. They are extirpated in parts 

of southern California, above dams and 

other impassable barriers in coastal 

streams and larger rivers, and in the 

upper Snake and Columbia Rivers. 

California 

In California, Pacific lampreys are 

currently found as far south as Malibu 

Creek, Los Angeles County (Moyle 

2002). In 1997, a single Pacific lamprey 

ammocoete was collected from the San 

Luis Rey River in San Diego County 

(Moyle 2002), but there is no further 

evidence of lampreys in this area. 

Pacific lampreys spawned in the Los 

Angeles River basin including the Los 

Angeles, San Gabriel, and Santa Ana 

Rivers, until 1955 (Swift et al. 1993). 

Lampreys were not recorded again until 

an adult was observed near the mouth 

of the Santa Ana River in 1991 (Swift et 

al. 1993). Comprehensive historical and 

current abundance data for Pacific 

lampreys in specific streams of southern 

California is lacking. 

For the central and south coast of 

California, the petition identifies Pacific 

lampreys occurring either currently or 

historically in Malibu Creek, Santa Clara 

River, Sespe Creek, Santa Ynez River, 

Santa Margarita River (the petition 

identifies this drainage as occurring in 

San Luis Obispo County; we assume 

this refers to Santa Margarita Creek, 

which is a tributary of the Salinas River 

in San Luis Obispo County), Salinas 

River, and San Lorenzo River. In 

addition to streams identified in the 

petition, Pacific lampreys have been 

documented in the Pajaro, Santa Maria, 

Ventura, Carmel, and Big Sur Rivers, 

and Big, San Carpoforo, Arroyo de la 

Cruz, and San Luis Obispo Creeks (Swift 

et al. 1993; Entrix and Lee and Pierce 

2003). There is little comparative data 

between historical and current 

distribution and abundance. 

Pacific lampreys have been 

historically or recently documented in 

many streams of the San Francisco Bay 

area, including: Alameda, Walnut, 

Walker, Lagunitas, Coyote, Dry, Pena 

and Sonoma Creeks, and the Napa 

River. Information for these streams 

consists primarily of presence or 

absence surveys. Long-term trend data 

are not available. 

Pacific lampreys occur within the 

Sacramento River and many of its 

tributaries. This species also occurs in 

the lower San Joaquin River and many 

of its tributaries, including the 

Stanislaus, Tuolumne, Merced, and 

Kings Rivers (Brown and Moyle 1993). 

Data are limited and mostly incidental 

from surveys designed to sample 

salmonids over the past 5 to 10 years. 

Anecdotal data for the Mokelumne, 

Sacramento, and San Joaquin Rivers 

indicate negative trends in the last 5 to 

10 years. 

In northwestern California, Pacific 

lampreys are documented from the 

Garcia, Big, Eel, Van Duzen, Mattole, 

Mad, Klamath, Scott, Trinity, and Smith 

Rivers. However, the actual distribution 

and abundance have not been 

determined for individual lamprey 

species because most lampreys captured 

in these rivers are not identified to the 

species level. Anecdotal evidence from 

early historical accounts and Tribal 

interviews suggest that Pacific lampreys 

have undergone substantial declines in 

the Eel and Lower Klamath Rivers in 

recent decades. Preliminary analysis of 

Service rotary trap data from the 

Klamath and Trinity Rivers suggests a 

declining trend from 1997 to 2004 for all 

life stages, with a notable decline in 

adult captures for the Klamath River 

system (Service, in litt. 2004a). We do 

not have lamprey population trend data 

for other streams in the area.

Idaho 

The petition describes the Pacific 

lamprey declines from historical levels 

in Idaho, but contains little information 

on the Pacific lamprey in the Snake 

River drainage in this State. We 

reviewed other reports that document 

the overall decline of the Pacific 

lamprey in the Snake River basin and 

associated tributaries. The Snake River 

basin in Idaho comprises the Snake 

River from Asotin Creek, Washington, 

upstream to Shoshone Falls, as well as 

many tributaries of the Snake River 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Proposed Rules 77161

(Boise, Payette, Weiser, Powder, 

Wildhorse, and Indian Rivers), and the 

entire Clearwater and Salmon River 

drainages. 

Historical data indicate that the 

Pacific lamprey distribution included 

the Salmon, Clearwater, and Wildhorse 

Rivers, and the Snake River upstream to 

Shoshone Falls, and probably mirrored 

ranges of native salmon and steelhead 

(Scott and Crossman 1973; Simpson and 

Wallace 1982; Close et al. 1995; Groves 

et al. 2001). Pacific lampreys once 

ascended the Snake River in large 

numbers (Wydoski and Whitney 1979). 

In the Hells Canyon area, R.J. Bell 

(Idaho Department of Fish and Game, in 

litt. 1958) collected 33 lampreys while 

operating a weir on the Wildhorse River 

during May 1958. Hammond (1979) 

completed a larval biology study on 

Pacific lampreys documenting 

occurrences from the Potlatch River, 

Lolo Creek, and South Fork Salmon 

River in the 1970s. Pacific lampreys 

were easily collected at Lower Salmon 

Falls for use as white sturgeon bait 

(Gilbert and Everman cited in P. Bowler, 

in litt. 2004). Several sources of 

anecdotal information corroborate 

historical distribution of Pacific 

lampreys throughout the majority of the 

Salmon River basin (draft Salmon River 

Subbasin Assessment 2004). 

Currently, Pacific lampreys are 

distributed throughout much of the 

Salmon and Clearwater River basins, 

excluding the North Fork Clearwater 

River above Dworshak Dam. Pacific 

lampreys were once plentiful in the 

Snake River from Asotin Creek to 

Shoshone Falls (Scott and Crossman 

1973; Simpson and Wallace 1982; Close 

et al. 1995; Groves et al. 2001). The 

construction of several Hells Canyon 

dams, which do not provide for fish 

passage, has reduced lamprey 

distribution due to lack of passage 

(Cochnauer and Claire 2004). Because 

Pacific lampreys no longer have access 

to habitats upstream of Hells Canyon 

and Dworshak dams, their habitat has 

been reduced by 50 percent (Cochnauer 

and Claire 2004). In addition, the 

number of adult lamprey capable of 

navigating upstream through fish 

ladders at Columbia and Snake River 

dams is only a fraction of what was 

observed prior to the dams being built 

on those rivers (Claire 2004). Pacific 

lampreys are at a very low number in 

the Snake River basin based upon 

counts at lower Snake River dams 

(Kostow 2002). 

Oregon 

Potential distribution of Pacific 

lampreys in Oregon includes the 

Columbia River mainstem to McNary 

Dam, associated Columbia River 

tributaries in Oregon including the 

Willamette River, tributaries of the 

Snake River in Oregon, and Oregon 

coastal rivers (Kostow 2002). A 

significant portion of the Pacific 

lamprey historical range in upper 

reaches of many rivers has been lost 

because of construction of dams with no 

fish passage structures (i.e., upper 

Deschutes River and tributaries, Hood 

River, and many tributaries of the 

Willamette River) (Kostow 2002). 

There is anecdotal information that 

Pacific lamprey distribution and 

abundance have been reduced in recent 

decades, especially in Oregon rivers 

furthest from the Pacific Ocean such as 

the Umatilla, Walla Walla, John Day, 

and Grande Ronde Rivers (Jackson et al. 

1996). Observations and records of adult 

Pacific lamprey passage at mainstem 

Columbia and Snake River dams 

indicate the species has declined 

substantially in these rivers and their 

tributaries in Oregon (Kostow 2002). 

Dam counts suggest that the largest 

declines occurred in the 1960s and 

1970s. Although lamprey numbers have 

increased in recent years (U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (Corps) 2003), we do 

not know whether these numbers are 

attributable to favorable ocean 

conditions resulting in greater host base 

or other factors, such as the recent 

inclusion of night counts at many dams, 

which has increased overall sampling 

efforts (Kostow 2002). 

The petition and other information 

provide some evidence that the 

Willamette River was, and may still be, 

an important area for Pacific lamprey 

production in the Columbia River basin 

(Kostow 2002). Although impassable 

dams and other artificial barriers have 

likely resulted in reduced distribution 

and abundance of lampreys in the 

Willamette River basin, information 

suggests that thousands of Pacific 

lampreys still ascend Willamette Falls 

and are still widely distributed in the 

Willamette Valley (Kostow 2002). 

There is a long history of commercial 

and Tribal harvest of Pacific lampreys at 

Willamette Falls. Commercial harvest 

records dating from the early 1900s 

show a peak of approximately 397,000 

pounds (180,076 kilograms) of Pacific 

lampreys in the mid-1940s. From 1943 

to 1949, 80,000 to 500,000 lampreys, 

estimated to be 10 to 20 percent of the 

run, were harvested (Close et al. 1995). 

As recently as 1994, about 5,000 

lampreys were harvested. Commercial 

harvest was ultimately eliminated in 

2002 by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife 

Commission because it could not 

determine the percent of the total run 

harvested annually (Kostow 2002). The 

State of Oregon listed the Pacific 

lamprey as a sensitive species in 1993, 

and gave the species protected status in 

1996. Tribal and personal harvest 

continues under State permit. 

Detailed data in the petition from 

coastal Oregon comes from the Umpqua 

and Rogue Rivers (Nawa et al. 2003). 

Counts of Pacific lampreys at dams on 

both rivers indicate a dramatic decline 

over the past 40 years. On the North 

Umpqua River, Pacific lamprey numbers 

have declined from a high of over 

46,000 in 1966 to 15 in 1997 at the 

Winchester Dam (Nawa et al. 2003). 

Surveys conducted by various entities 

in the Alsea River basin documented 

Pacific lampreys to be well distributed, 

but generally absent from higher reaches 

above culverts (Kostow 2002). The 

Nestucca River and rivers draining to 

Tillamook Bay appear to be areas of low 

production for the Pacific lamprey, 

based on incidental data collected from 

salmonid smolt trap captures (Kostow 

2002). For the majority of coastal 

streams in Oregon, however, there is 

little or no trend data and very little 

basin-specific distribution data in 

Oregon. The petition presents anecdotal 

evidence that lamprey populations have 

declined from historic numbers for the 

Applegate, Coquille, Siletz, and Siuslaw 

Rivers. 

For the remainder of the streams in 

Oregon mentioned in the petition, there 

is not sufficient data to determine 

historical or current distribution and 

abundance, or documented evidence of 

decline. 

Washington 

Available information and abundance 

data for the Pacific lamprey in western 

Washington is limited and largely 

anecdotal (Molly Hallock, Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(WDFW), cited in Bob Vadas, WDFW, 

pers. comm. 2004). Much of the data 

references only ‘‘lamprey.’’ The current 

distribution of the Pacific lamprey in 

western Washington includes most large 

rivers and streams along the coast and 

the Strait of Juan de Fuca, throughout 

Puget Sound, including the Nisqually 

Reach, and parts of the Hood Canal 

systems (Cook-Tabor 1999; Wydoski and 

Whitney 2003). The species’ range 

extends long distances inland in the 

Columbia, Snake, and Yakima River 

systems (Wydoski and Whitney 2003). 

Collection records show Pacific 

lampreys widely distributed on the 

Olympic Peninsula in Ozette Lake; the 

Big, Salmon, Hoh, Queets, Quinault, 

Humptulips, Ozette, and Satsop Rivers; 

Kalaloch Creek; and streams flowing 

into the Strait of Juan de Fuca (Mongillo 

and Hallock 1997; Sam Brenkman, 

77162 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

Olympic National Park, pers. comm. 

2004). However, no population status 

and trend data are available. 

Pacific lampreys in the Columbia 

River basin have declined from their 

pre-1940s population numbers based on 

individuals counted at Columbia and 

Snake River dams (Close et al. 1995; 

Pirtle et al. 2003). Substantial declines 

in the distribution and abundance of 

Pacific lampreys in Washington have 

apparently occurred in tributaries of the 

Columbia and Snake Rivers, and in the 

Elwha River and Salt Creek on the 

Olympic Peninsula. R. Fuller (WDFW, 

in litt. 2004) indicates the species was 

more common in the 1980s, then 

declined in the 1990s, and has increased 

in counts in 2003 and 2004, although 

not to past levels. WDFW biologists 

noted this pattern of change in the 

Stillaguamish, Snohomish, Skagit, 

Green, Tolt, and Quillayute Rivers, 

Hood Canal, and the Strait of Juan de 

Fuca (R. Fuller, in litt. 2004). Pacific 

lamprey redds (a spawning nest formed 

by fish in a river bed where their eggs 

and sperm are deposited) and 

individuals have been observed less 

frequently in the past 10 years in 

streams and rivers of the Strait of Juan 

de Fuca (B. Vadas, pers. comm. 2004).

Tribal elders of the Elwha Klallam 

Tribe report that Pacific lampreys were 

historically abundant in the Elwha River 

and other north Olympic Peninsula 

rivers, including the Pysht, Hoko, and 

Dungeness Rivers, and Salt Creek (Mike 

McHenry, Elwha Klallam Tribe, pers. 

comm. 2004). Anecdotal information 

suggests current numbers may represent 

less than 5 percent of their historical 

observations (M. McHenry, pers. comm. 

2004). Only one Pacific lamprey (a 

juvenile in 2003) has been recorded on 

the Elwha River, below the dam, in the 

last 20 years (M. McHenry, pers. comm. 

2004). 

In southwest Washington, Pacific 

lampreys are common in Mill Creek and 

in the Grays, Skamokawa, Elochoman, 

Abernathy, Germany, Kalama, South 

Fork Toutle, and Green Rivers (R. 

Fuller, in litt. 2004). In the 1960s, 

Pacific lampreys were common in the 

Chehalis River system (Nawa et al. 

2003), and appeared to be more 

common on the coast than in the Puget 

Trough (R. Fuller, in litt. 2004). From 

1997 to 2000, thousands of lampreys 

were trapped on the North Fork Toutle 

River, but numbers have declined from 

2000 to 2004 (R. Fuller, in litt. 2004). 

Pacific lampreys have been documented 

in Cedar Creek and its tributaries (Pirtle 

et al. 2003), at the Speelyai Hatchery on 

the Lewis River (R. Fuller, in litt. 2004), 

and in streams near Franz Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge in Skamania County 

(Nawa et al. 2003). 

In eastern Washington, Pacific 

lampreys historically occurred in 

numerous other basins, including the 

Spokane River and Asotin Creek 

(ACCDLSC 1995; Wydoski and Whitney 

2003). The purported historical 

occurrence of Pacific lampreys in the 

mainstem Columbia River above Chief 

Joseph Dam and Grand Coulee Dam 

prior to their construction (BioAnalysts, 

Inc. 2000) is supported by historical 

documentation of remnant Pacific 

lamprey at Kettle Falls and in the 

Spokane River up to Spokane Falls 

(Wydoski and Whitney 2003). 

Where historical information does 

exist for river basins (Walla Walla, 

Wenatchee, Tucannon, Asotin), Pacific 

lampreys were described as ‘‘abundant,’’

‘‘common,’’ or ‘‘likely had large runs’’

(Service 1959; ACCDLSC 1995; G. 

Mendel, WDFW, pers. comm. 1994, 

cited in Jackson et al. 1996; Lane and 

Lane cited in Confederated Tribes of the 

Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) 

2004; Swindell cited in CTUIR 2004). In 

1999, surveys found Pacific lamprey 

ammocoetes were absent from reaches 

in the Walla Walla River subbasin 

(Bronson cited in CTUIR 2004). Adult 

Pacific lampreys have not been 

documented in the Asotin Creek 

watershed since at least 1980, although 

small lampreys of unknown species 

have been observed (ACCDLSC 1995). A 

2002 trapping study designed to capture 

emigrating Chinook salmon in the Entiat 

River found Pacific lampreys to be the 

most numerous species captured during 

the time of the study. Most outmigration of lampreys occurred during 

the highest stream flows of the trapping 

period (Service, in litt. 2002). Although 

Pacific lampreys are occasionally caught 

incidentally at a screw trap on the 

Tucannon River, lamprey production in 

this subbasin is considered low (Close 

2000) because the population has 

rapidly declined since 1981 (G. Mendel, 

pers. comm. 1994, cited in Jackson et al. 

1996). 

Pacific lampreys occur throughout the 

mid-Columbia and Snake Rivers and 

many associated river basins, including 

the Tucannon, Walla Walla, Yakima, 

Wenatchee, Entiat, and Methow Rivers. 

The Pacific lamprey distribution 

currently extends up to Chief Joseph 

Dam on the Columbia River, and to 

Hells Canyon Dam on the Snake River 

(Nass et al. 2003; CTUIR 2004). 

Passage data from numerous 

mainstem Columbia (McNary, Rock 

Island, Rocky Reach, and Wells) and 

Snake River dams (Ice Harbor) suggest 

that, although annual numbers fluctuate 

widely at each project, there is a 

decreasing trend in the number of adult 

Pacific lampreys counted at each project 

(BioAnalysts, Inc. 2000). Data indicate 

that large declines occurred during the 

late 1960s and 1970s, and that current 

counts continue to be well below 

historical levels (Close et al. 1995; 

BioAnalysts, Inc. 2000; Corps 2003). For 

example, the number of adult Pacific 

lampreys counted at the fish ladder at 

Ice Harbor Dam on the Snake River 

declined from 50,000 in 1963 to 

approximately 1,700 in 2003 (Corps 

2003). 

Although adult lamprey counts have 

increased at Snake River dams (Ice 

Harbor, Lower Monumental, Little 

Goose, and Lower Granite) and 

Columbia River dams (McNary, Priest 

Rapids, Rock Island, Rocky Reach, and 

Wells) in recent years, they are still 

considered to be well below historical 

levels (Close et al. 1995; Corps 2003; 

BioAnalysts, Inc. 2004). For example, 

counts at Rocky Reach Dam have shown 

a decline from more than 17,000 adult 

Pacific lampreys in 1969 to an average 

of 330 between 1983 and 2001. 

However, counts increased to 1,842 and 

2,521 adult Pacific lampreys in 2002 

and 2003, respectively (BioAnalysts, 

Inc. 2004). Increased numbers of 

lampreys in recent years may be an 

artifact of increased sampling or due to 

increased food abundance in the ocean 

(BioAnalysts, Inc. 2000). 

Mexico, Alaska, Canada, and Pacific 

Ocean 

Information on Pacific lampreys in 

areas beyond the coterminous U.S. is 

lacking. Only a few observations of 

Pacific lampreys have been documented 

in Baja California, and no information 

was found on Pacific lampreys for areas 

beyond Alaska around the Pacific Rim 

to Japan. Some information is available 

from British Columbia, Canada. 

Pacific lampreys, first recorded in 

Canada in 1891, were historically 

abundant off the entire coast of British 

Columbia (Hart 1973). They were 

probably present in all coastal streams 

(Carl et al. 1977) and found in all major 

rivers, including the Columbia River in 

British Columbia, and the Fraser and 

Thompson Rivers upstream as far as 

Shuswap Lake (Scott and Crossman 

1973). The Nicola River is a major 

producer of Pacific lampreys in the 

Fraser River drainage (Beamish and 

Levings 1991). Large numbers of 

recently metamorphosed adult Pacific 

lampreys migrating out of the Nicola 

River during 1984 and 1985 and from 

1987 to 1988 indicate Pacific lampreys 

were abundant in the Fraser and Nicola 

Rivers at least through the 1980s 

(Beamish and Levings 1991).

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Proposed Rules 77163

Little information is available for the 

Pacific lamprey in Alaska. Surveys have 

been limited or nonexistent. We have 

only seven records of Pacific lampreys 

in southeast Alaska (Dan Cushing, 

Service, in litt. 2004). Information for 

other parts of Alaska is not available 

due to the lack of surveys (Mark Lisac, 

Service, in litt. 2004; Jim Larson, 

Service, in litt. 2004). 

The petition presents data on the 

number of lampreys (both Pacific and 

unidentified lampreys combined) 

captured in ocean hauls between 1980 

and 2001 along the Pacific coast off 

Washington, Oregon, and California. 

Fewer lampreys were caught off the 

coast of California than coastal Oregon 

and Washington. The petition also 

presents data on the percent occurrence 

of lampreys in those ocean hauls that 

indicate an increasing trend between 

1977 and 2001. 

Conservation Status of the Pacific 

Lamprey 

The petition identified and described 

a number of threats to Pacific lampreys, 

including artificial barriers to migration, 

poor water quality, harvest, predation 

by nonnative species, stream and 

floodplain degradation, loss of estuarine 

habitat, decline in prey, ocean 

conditions, dredging, and dewatering 

(Jackson et al. 1996; Close et al. 1999; 

BioAnalysts, Inc. 2000; Close 2000; 

Nawa et al. 2003). Much like salmon, 

there are many reasons for the observed 

reductions in range and abundance of 

Pacific lampreys, and not one single 

threat can be pinpointed as the primary 

reason for their apparent decline. 

Similar to salmon, barriers to Pacific 

lamprey spawning and rearing habitat 

may pose a large threat. Beamish and 

Northcote (1989) note that Pacific 

lampreys persist for only a few years 

above impassable barriers before dying 

out, and are unable to establish a nonanadromous form under these 

circumstances. Artificial structures such 

as dams, road culverts, and water 

diversions can impede upstream 

migrations by adult Pacific lampreys 

and downstream movement of 

ammocoetes and macropthalmia. 

Declining lamprey populations 

observed at dams indicate the effects 

barriers have on lamprey access to 

upstream spawning habitat. Since the 

completion of the Willamette Valley 

Project, which included construction of 

13 dams by 1967, annual commercial 

harvest of lampreys decreased from an 

average of 218,000 pounds per year 

(1943 to 1952) to 13,000 pounds per 

year (1969 to 2001) (Kostow 2002). 

Although these numbers do not reflect 

varying efforts in harvest, they do 

indicate a negative population trend 

(Kostow 2002; Nawa et al. 2003). In 

addition, as previously noted, passage is 

completely blocked by the Elwha Dam 

on the Elwha River in Washington, the 

Shasta Dam on the upper Sacramento 

River in California, Hells Canyon Dam 

on the Snake River in Idaho, Wells Dam 

on the Columbia River in Washington, 

and Iron Gate Dam on the Klamath River 

in California. Culverts may also act as a 

barrier to lampreys as determined in the 

Alsea Basin, where lampreys were often 

absent above road culverts (Kostow 

2002). 

During downstream migrations, 

juvenile lampreys may be entrained in 

water diversions or turbine intakes. In 

many cases, these water diversions and 

hydroelectric projects have been 

screened to bypass juvenile salmonids. 

However, due to their size and weak 

swimming ability, juvenile lampreys are 

frequently impinged on the screens 

resulting in injury or death (Hammond 

1979; Jackson et al. 1996; Moursund et 

al. 2000). In addition, downstream 

migrations through large reservoirs 

created by dams may increase 

susceptibility to predation, and 

alterations in reservoir levels may 

impact ammocoetes, as a result of 

dewatering areas where they are 

burrowed (BioAnalysts Inc. 2000). 

There is evidence that dams with fish 

ladders designed to pass salmonids do 

not effectively pass lampreys (Close et 

al. 1995; Vella et al. 1999; Kostow 2002). 

The excessive use of swimming energy 

required by Pacific lampreys to 

negotiate fishways at dams may be a 

factor in their decline (Mesa et al. 2003). 

Lampreys are unable to negotiate fish 

ladders or culverts designed with sharp 

angles because they cannot maintain 

suction with their mouth on 

discontinuous surfaces that, in 

combination with high water velocities, 

effectively block or restrict passage 

(Ocker et al. 2001). Although adult 

lamprey counts are not consistent or 

standardized (Close et al. 1995), the data 

available from the limited counts at 

dams indicate large population declines 

throughout the Columbia and Snake 

Rivers. Lamprey counts on the 

Columbia River from the 1960s to 2003 

include the following; Bonneville Dam 

passed 350,000 lampreys in the early 

1960s down to 177,027 in 2003; The 

Dalles Dam went from 300,000 lampreys 

in the early 1960s to 28,995 in 2003; Ice 

Harbor Dam has gone from 50,000 adult 

Pacific lampreys in 1963 to 1,702 in 

2003 (Kostow 2002; Corps 2003; Nawa 

et al. 2003). Adult Pacific lamprey 

counts in 2003 on the mainstem Snake 

River at Lower Monumental, Little 

Goose, and Lower Granite dams were 

468, 660, and 282, respectively (Corps 

2003). 

Another identified threat associated 

with dams results from alterations in 

reservoir levels, which may dewater 

areas where ammocoetes occur (Pacific 

Northwest National Laboratory 2002). 

Water diversions at dams for 

agricultural or municipal purposes may 

also dry up stream reaches where 

ammocoetes reside. 

Pacific lampreys are harvested for 

food or commercial purposes, which 

may present a threat, particularly if 

these activities are concentrated on 

rivers with low population numbers of 

these species. Pacific lampreys are 

culturally important to Tribes in the 

Pacific Coast for sustenance, medicinal, 

and ceremonial purposes. Harvest was 

historically more widespread for 

lampreys than at present (Close et al. 

2002). Although commercial harvest of 

Pacific lampreys for food, bait, animal 

feed, and fertilizer at the Willamette 

Falls on the Willamette River was 

discontinued by the State of Oregon in 

2002, Tribal and personal use harvest at 

that location is still permitted (Kostow 

2002). Due in part to declining numbers, 

harvest effort for Pacific lampreys is low 

across much of their range, except for 

California, which allows unlimited 

harvest of lampreys. There is evidence 

that lampreys are regularly collected for 

bait on the Mokelumne and American 

Rivers (Michelle Workman, East Bay 

Municipal Utility District, pers. comm. 

2004; Rob Titus, California Department 

of Fish and Game, pers. comm. 2004). 

Nonnative freshwater fish prey on 

juvenile and adult Pacific lampreys 

(Close et al. 1995; Moyle 2002) and may 

pose a threat to lamprey abundance. 

Nonnative fishes such as bass 

(Micropterus spp.), sunfish (Lepomis

spp.), walleye (Stizostedion vitreum 

vitreum), striped bass (Morone 

saxatilis), and catfish (Ictalurus spp.), 

among others, have become established 

over the last century in some rivers in 

the western U.S. 

Elevated water temperature has been 

documented as a factor resulting in 

mortality of eggs and early stage 

ammocoetes under laboratory 

conditions. Water temperatures at 72°F 

(22° C) may cause significant death or 

deformation of eggs or ammocoetes 

(Meeuwig et al. 2004). A water 

temperature of 72°F (22° C) or higher 

may be a common occurrence in 

degraded streams during the early-tomid-summer period of lamprey 

spawning and ammocoete development. 

In addition, because ammocoetes 

colonize specific areas for 2 to 7 years, 

are relatively immobile in the stream 

substrates, and often occur in high 

77164 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

densities, they are prone to effects from 

chemical poisoning and from channel 

alterations that may affect many age 

classes from a single action (Scott and 

Crossman 1973; Kostow 2002; Nawa et 

al. 2003).

The petition identified ocean 

conditions as a possible threat to the 

Pacific lamprey. Pacific salmon 

(Oncorhynchus spp.), Pacific hake 

(Merluccius productus), and walleye 

pollock (Theragra chalcogramma) have 

declined in numbers or are 

commercially harvested; reductions in 

the availability of these host/food 

species may present a threat to Pacific 

lampreys. 

Research and monitoring specifically 

designed to address the Pacific lamprey 

began in the 1990s, initiated by several 

Tribes in the Columbia River basin. 

More recently, Tribes in the Lower 

Klamath River have initiated research 

and monitoring studies on lampreys in 

the main stem Klamath River and its 

tributaries below Iron Gate Dam. 

Limited studies have also been done 

recently within the area of the Klamath 

River Hydroelectric Project by 

PacifiCorp. Along with many Tribes, 

State and Federal agencies are now 

beginning to incorporate the needs of 

lampreys into management and 

monitoring plans. For example, the 

Corps has funded many studies on 

lamprey passage issues and is 

researching ways to improve dam 

passage for lampreys. However, there is 

still a lack of knowledge of the species 

and little systematic monitoring of 

abundance and distribution. 

Western Brook Lamprey 

Adult western brook lampreys are 

generally 7 in (18 cm) or less in total 

length (Wydoski and Whitney 1979; 

Moyle 2002). In the adult life stage, the 

oral disc is small and poorly developed 

and the two teeth (cusps) are rounded 

and nonfunctional (Wydoski and 

Whitney 2003). Adults are dark on the 

back and sides and yellow to white on 

the underside. Ammocoetes are 

sometimes distinguished by a dark tail 

and pigmentation of the head above the 

gill openings (Moyle 2002). 

Western brook lampreys are found 

from coastal southeast Alaska to 

California, which includes inland 

distribution in the Columbia, 

Sacramento, and San Joaquin River 

basins (Moyle 2002). They have been 

documented in the Columbia River as 

far upstream as the Yakima River basin; 

none have been confirmed in the Snake 

River basin. However, Mendel and 

others (Mendel, cited in Asotin County 

Conservation District Landowner 

Steering Committee (ACCDLSC) 1995) 

captured small lampreys that were 

either river or western brook lampreys 

in Asotin Creek, in Washington. 

Detailed information on western brook 

lamprey distribution is lacking. 

Spawning occurs from March to July, 

where between 1,100 to 5,500 eggs per 

female are deposited (Kostow 2002; 

Moyle 2002; Wydoski and Whitney 

2003). The newly hatched ammocoetes 

emerge about 10 days after spawning 

(Moyle 2002) and drift into silty 

backwater areas. Western brook lamprey 

ammocoetes have been observed at 

densities as high as 203 per square yard 

(170 per square meter) (Scott and 

Crossman 1973). These lamprey 

ammocoetes are about 3.5 to 6 in (9 to 

15 cm) in length, and are about 5 years 

old (Wydoski and Whitney 2003). 

Metamorphosis to adult stage occurs 

from February through July (Wydoski 

and Whitney 2003), and at this time 

their gonads are not fully developed. 

They burrow into the stream substrate 

where they remain dormant through the 

winter months. In the spring when 

water temperatures are above 50° F (10°

C), western brook lampreys emerge from 

their burrows sexually mature and they 

remain in freshwater where they may 

migrate short distances to spawn. 

Western brook lampreys are 

nonparasitic and do not feed as adults 

(Kostow 2002). 

Population Status and Distribution 

The petition provides little 

information regarding the status or 

trends of the western brook lamprey. 

Historical and current abundance data, 

as well as information on their 

distribution are lacking. We found 

limited additional information that 

identified some local declines and 

extirpations, but this information does 

not indicate a broad reduction in 

abundance or distribution supporting 

the petition’s claim. 

California 

In California, the western brook 

lamprey has been observed primarily in 

the Sacramento River drainage (Moyle 

2002), but has also been reported in San 

Francisco Bay streams such as Mark 

West Creek and Coyote Creek (Moyle 

2002). A small population may occur in 

Kelsey Creek, a tributary to Clear Lake 

(Moyle 2002), and the species is rare or 

extirpated from the Putah and Cache 

Creek watersheds (P. Moyle, pers. 

comm. 2004). Ammocoetes previously 

collected from streams in the Los 

Angeles River may have been the 

western brook lamprey, although 

according to Swift et al. (1993), this 

population is now extirpated. Western 

brook lampreys are known to occur in 

the Navarro and Eel Rivers in 

Mendocino County and in Willow Creek 

in Humboldt County (Moyle 2002), and 

are suspected to occur in other streams 

along the northern California coast. 

They apparently persist above the 

impassable Scott Dam on the upper Eel 

River (Moyle 2002). 

Oregon 

Very little information exists for the 

western brook lamprey in Oregon. The 

distribution of the western brook 

lamprey in Oregon may include most 

coastal streams and the Columbia River 

upstream to the Yakima River (Kostow 

2002). This distribution is based heavily 

on museum records as there are little 

recent data available on the distribution 

and abundance of this species. In a 

recent inventory by CTUIR, western 

brook lampreys were absent from all 

areas inventoried (rivers in northeast 

and northcentral Oregon), except for a 

small population observed in the South 

Fork Walla Walla River. Kostow (2002) 

also notes their historical abundance in 

these basins is unknown and they were 

perhaps naturally rare and irregularly 

distributed. The petition and Kostow 

(2002) suggest the status of the western 

brook lamprey in the lower Columbia 

Basin is largely unknown. Kostow 

(2002) also noted the difficulty in 

determining their status in the lower 

Columbia River because it is hard to 

differentiate between species in the 

ammocoete phase, and the only adults 

regularly observed are the Pacific 

lamprey. 

A systematic survey completed for 

both Pacific and the western brook 

lampreys in the Alsea River basin 

demonstrated that both western brook 

and Pacific lampreys were present, but 

that the Pacific lampreys were more 

common (Kostow 2002). Neither species 

was found in the upstream reaches of 

the basin above road culverts, 

apparently because culverts frequently 

prevent passage. Pacific lampreys were 

observed at higher densities than 

western brook lampreys (Kostow 2002). 

Washington 

Although western brook lampreys 

were considered common in 

Washington in 1936 (Nawa et al. 2003), 

Morrow (1980) stated, without 

documentation, that the species ‘‘is not 

particularly abundant anywhere as far 

as is known.’’ The species’ known 

distribution includes parts of the 

Olympic Peninsula, including streams 

on the southern and western boundaries 

of the Olympic Peninsula, but not 

streams on the northern and eastern 

boundaries (Mongillo and Hallock 

1997). In surveys conducted during the 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Proposed Rules 77165

1930s, western brook lampreys were 

collected on the Olympic Peninsula 

from the Quillayute, Queets, Quinault, 

Humptulips, Wynoochee, and Satsop 

Rivers, but not the Hoh River, and from 

Chimacum Creek (Mongillo and Hallock 

1997; Cooper cited in R. Fuller, in litt. 

2004). Mongillo and Hallock (1997) 

include the Hoh River in the 

distribution of the western brook 

lamprey because the species is found in 

the adjacent Quillayute and Queets 

Rivers. Other observed localities include 

coastal and Puget Sound streams, 

including the lower reaches of the 

Nisqually River (Cook-Tabor 1999), 

North Creek near Seattle, and Dry Creek 

in Mason County (Froese and Pauly 

2004). This species has also been 

recently reported from the Nooksack 

River (R. Fuller, in litt. 2004), the North 

Fork and South Fork Chelatchie Creeks, 

and tributaries of Cedar Creek in the 

Lewis River watershed (Pirtle et al. 

2003).

Historically, western brook lampreys 

were considered abundant in the Walla 

Walla River subbasin (Lane and Lane 

cited in CTUIR 2004; Swindell cited in 

CTUIR 2004). Numerous unidentified 

lampreys were documented as 

‘‘abundant’’ at the Tumwater trap on the 

Wenatchee River in 1955 (Service 1959). 

Western brook lampreys are known to 

occur in the Yakima and Walla Walla 

River basins. While the abundance of 

the western brook lamprey is unknown, 

the populations in the Walla Walla 

River subbasin appear to be self 

sustaining (CTUIR 2004). In 1998, 

assessments of the Walla Walla River 

subbasin indicated that lampreys were 

present in 8 of 12 subwatersheds 

inventoried (Mendel cited in CTUIR, in 

litt. 2004). Although not identified to 

species, these individuals were assumed 

to be western brook lampreys because 

Pacific lampreys have not been 

documented in recent sampling efforts 

(Bronson cited in CTUIR 2004). Western 

brook lampreys are thought to be in the 

Entiat River (Phil Archibald cited in 

Service, in litt. 2004b). Small river or 

western brook lampreys were 

documented in Asotin Creek by Mendel 

and others (ACCDLSC 1995). 

Alaska and Canada 

Historical distribution of the western 

brook lamprey in Canada includes the 

Cowichan River, Vancouver Island; 

tributaries of the Fraser River; Hooknose 

Creek, King Island; Cultus Lake on the 

lower mainland, and Lakelse Lake on 

the Skeena River system (Scott and 

Crossman 1973; Carl et al. 1977). 

Additional locations include Blake 

Creek and Burns Bog (Nawa et al. 2003) 

and the Queen Charlotte Islands (Nawa 

et al. 2003). A distinct, rare population 

of the western brook lamprey, having 

both parasitic and nonparasitic forms, 

may be endemic to the Morrison Creek 

watershed on Vancouver Island 

(Environment Canada 2004). Between 

1978 and 1984, the population was 

relatively stable, but numbers may have 

declined in recent years. The Morrison 

Creek population was listed as 

endangered under the Species at Risk 

Act in Canada in May 2000 

(Environment Canada 2004). 

There is little information available 

for the western brook lamprey in 

Alaska. Surveys have been limited or 

nonexistent. We have four records of the 

western brook lampreys in southeast 

Alaska (D. Cushing, in litt. 2004). 

Conservation Status of the Western 

Brook Lamprey 

The western brook lamprey 

distribution overlaps with a portion of 

the Pacific lamprey range in Oregon, 

Washington, California, Canada and 

Alaska. Consequently, this species may 

experience many of the same threats 

discussed for Pacific lampreys. 

However, western brook lampreys are 

not anadromous, and thus are not 

subject to threats associated with ocean 

conditions, loss of estuarine habitat, and 

barriers to and from ocean environments 

which are threats experienced by Pacific 

lampreys and river lampreys. No 

specific data from the petition or 

available from our files is available that 

documents threats to this species. 

River Lamprey 

The adult river lamprey has two teeth 

(cusps) and no posterior teeth on the 

oral disc (Wydoski and Whitney 2003). 

Adult river lampreys average between 7 

and 12 in (18 and 30 cm) in length. 

They are dark on the back and sides 

with silvery yellow on the belly and 

dark pigmentation on the tail (Moyle 

2002). Except for the last 6 months to 1 

year of life, the western brook lamprey 

and the river lamprey are 

indistinguishable from each other 

(Kostow 2002). 

River lampreys are found from just 

north of Juneau, Alaska, to San 

Francisco Bay in California (Nawa et al. 

2003). However, detailed information on 

their distribution is lacking. River 

lampreys are associated with large river 

systems such as the Fraser, Columbia, 

Klamath, Eel, and Sacramento Rivers. 

Beamish (1980) and others have noted 

that river lamprey production appears to 

be concentrated only in particular 

rivers, and only in the lower portions of 

these large rivers. The river lamprey is 

thought to be closely related to the 

resident western brook lamprey (Docker 

et al. 1999). 

Little information is available on river 

lamprey life history. Metamorphosis 

from the ammocoete to macropthalmia 

life stage occurs between July and April 

(Kostow 2002; Moyle 2002). At this 

time, macropthalmia are thought to live 

deep in the river channel, which may 

explain why they are rarely observed 

(Kostow 2002). As adults, their oral disc 

develops just before they enter the 

ocean between May and July (Kostow 

2002; Moyle 2002). During the 

approximately 10 weeks they are at sea 

in the parasitic phase, they remain close 

to shore, feeding primarily on smelt and 

herring near the surface (Kostow 2002). 

According to Moyle (2002), their life 

span is 6 to 7 years. River lampreys lay 

11,400 to 37,300 eggs per adult female 

(Kostow 2002; Moyle 2002). 

Population Status and Trends 

The petition provides little 

information regarding the status or 

trends of the river lamprey, and 

acknowledges the difficulty of acquiring 

data for this species (Nawa et al. 2003). 

Both historical and current abundance 

data as well as distribution data is 

lacking. Both the petition and other 

information in our files indicate some 

potential local declines, but we have no 

data to substantiate a significant decline 

in abundance or distribution of river 

lampreys. 

California 

In California, most records for the 

river lamprey are for the lower 

Sacramento and San Joaquin River 

system tributaries in the Central Valley, 

especially in the Stanislaus and 

Tuolumne Rivers (Moyle 2002). River 

lampreys have been historically 

reported in the Alameda and Napa 

Rivers, and Sonoma and Cache Creeks, 

which are tributaries of San Francisco 

Bay (Wang 1986; Moyle et al. 1995; 

Moyle 2002). River lampreys appear to 

spawn regularly in Salmon Creek and in 

tributaries to the lower Russian River 

(Moyle 2002). River lamprey juveniles 

have been captured in recent years 

(1996, 1997, 1999, and 2004) in rotary 

trapping operations below the Red Bluff 

Diversion Dam, Sacramento River (Tom 

Kisanuki, Service, pers. comm. 2004). A 

single adult female was collected at 

Cape Horn Dam on the Eel River (Moyle 

2002). River lampreys are known to 

occur in the Trinity and Klamath Rivers, 

where they are reported as being 

common in the incoming tides during 

spawning migration, although no 

quantitative estimates or historical 

comparisons of abundance data are 

available. 

77166 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

River lamprey data are limited in 

California and long-term data are not 

available; most data are incidental to 

salmonid surveys. According to Moyle 

et al. (1995), the river lamprey has 

become uncommon in California. 

Anecdotal information suggests 

populations are declining because the 

Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Russian 

River systems have been altered by 

dams, diversions, pollution, and 

degradation of suitable spawning and 

rearing habitat in rivers and tributaries; 

however, there are no quantitative data 

to confirm this information. River 

lampreys are known to be extirpated 

from Cache Creek (P. Moyle, pers. 

comm. 2004). 

Oregon 

In Oregon, information regarding the 

status of river lampreys is lacking 

because so few river lampreys have been 

recently documented in Oregon. River 

lamprey remains were identified in 

harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardsi) 

scat in the Umpqua River estuary in 

1997 and 1998 (Orr et al. 2004). In 1980, 

river lampreys were caught in Yaquina 

Bay and from the Columbia River 

estuary (Bond et al. 1983). Most 

museum records are from the lower 

Columbia River, although there is a 

single record from the Columbia River 

Gorge, and several from small coastal 

streams (Kostow 2002). 

Lack of observations of river brook 

lampreys in Oregon may be because of 

the following reasons: the species are 

naturally rare; they are hard to detect in 

freshwater (Beamish 1980; Beamish and 

Youson 1987); there have been a lack of 

appropriate surveys; and river lampreys 

have been misidentified as western 

brook lampreys. 

Washington

In Washington, there are no historical 

distribution records for river lamprey, 

although the species probably occurred 

in most major rivers (Wydoski and 

Whitney 1979). Morrow (1980) stated, 

without documentation, that the river 

lamprey ‘‘does not appear to be 

particularly abundant anywhere within 

its range.’’ The current distribution of 

river lamprey includes rivers and 

streams along the coast from the mouth 

of the Columbia River to the mouth of 

the Hoh River, throughout Puget Sound, 

and in the Lake Washington basin 

(Wydoski and Whitney 2003), but not 

on the Olympic Peninsula (Mongillo 

and Hallock 1997). Two records (1931 

and 1959) of river lamprey in Lake 

Cushman (Mongillo and Hallock 1997; 

S. Brenkman, pers. comm. 2004), 

suggest this lake may have once 

supported an adfluvial (lake dwelling) 

population (Mongillo and Hallock 

1997). The petition notes specimens 

were collected from the Bogachiel River 

in 1897, Lake Pleasant (date unknown), 

off the coast of Washington in 1999, and 

4.0 mi (6.4 km) off La Push, Washington 

in 2002. River lamprey ammocoetes 

were trapped in the 1980s in the lower 

reach of the Nisqually River, but no 

river lamprey population estimates or 

in-stream distribution information are 

available (Cook-Tabor 1999). 

WDFW listed the river lamprey as a 

‘‘State Candidate’’ in 1998 because of its 

uncertain status. Surveys are ongoing to 

determine if the species should be listed 

as State endangered, threatened, or 

sensitive (Wydoski and Whitney 2003; 

WDFW 2004). 

River lampreys occur in the Columbia 

River and have been documented in the 

Yakima River basin. River lampreys 

were identified by the Pacific Northwest 

National Laboratory (2004) in the 

Hanford Reach of the Columbia River. 

Numerous unidentified lamprey species 

were documented as ‘‘abundant’’ at the 

Tumwater trap on the Wenatchee River 

in 1955 (Service 1959), but may have 

been either river or western brook 

lampreys. Also, small lampreys 

documented in Asotin Creek by Mendel 

and others (Mendel cited in ACCDLSC 

1995) were not identified to species and 

may have been either river or western 

brook lampreys. 

Canada 

In Canada, the river lamprey was first 

recorded in British Columbia in 1942. 

Although considered uncommon in 

British Columbia (Carl et al. 1977), river 

lampreys were more abundant in the 

southern part of the Province (Scott and 

Crossman 1973). Historical records from 

both fresh and salt water locations 

include the following: the Strait of 

Georgia, the sea off Discovery Island, 

Yellow Point, and the Sechelt 

Peninsula; English Bay; Porlier Pass; 

mouth of the Fraser River, Howe Sound, 

and the Skeena River; Powell Lake; and 

the Queen Charlotte Islands (Hart 1973; 

Carl et al. 1977; Beamish 1980). In 1979, 

an estimated 6,500,000 young adult 

river lampreys migrated out of the 

Fraser River (Beamish and Youson 

1987). 

Alaska 

Little information exists for river 

lampreys in Alaska. Surveys have been 

limited or non-existent. There are five 

river lamprey specimens that have been 

collected in southeast Alaska (D. 

Cushing, in litt. 2004). 

Conservation Status of the River 

Lamprey 

River lampreys are likely susceptible 

to some of the threats discussed for 

Pacific lampreys because their 

distribution overlaps with a portion of 

the Pacific lamprey range in Oregon, 

Washington, California, Canada and 

Alaska. The threats to this species 

include activities such as dredging, loss 

of habitat, and poor water quality; all 

attributes common to the lower reaches 

of large developed rivers. Predation by 

nonnative fish species can also threaten 

the river lamprey because the diversity 

and abundance of nonnatives may be 

high in developed rivers (Moyle 2002). 

However, there is little documentation 

of specific threats to this species is in 

either the petition or in our files. 

Summary 

Our evaluation of the petition and 

other information indicates there is a 

decline in Pacific lamprey historical 

abundance and distribution throughout 

California, Oregon, Washington, and 

Idaho and that threats to the species 

occur in much of the petitioned range of 

the species. However, the petition did 

not attempt to describe or justify a 

listable entity within the petitioned 

area, stating only that, ‘‘Pacific lamprey 

populations could be subdivided into 

distinct population segments at spatial 

scales similar to the ESUs developed for 

listed salmon species (see Evolutionary 

Significant Units for steelhead in NMFS 

1996). Petitioners believe that 

delineation of distinct population 

segments is best left to the discretion of 

USFWS’’ (Nawa et al. 2003). 

The petition requested that we 

evaluate the Pacific lamprey within 

California, Oregon, Washington, and 

Idaho without providing information 

suggesting how that portion of the 

range, or any smaller portion, could be 

considered a potentially appropriate 

distinct population segment (e.g., what 

the discrete entity would be or the 

potential significance of the undefined 

population). Neither the information 

provided in the petition nor otherwise 

available in Service files presents 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information to demonstrate that the 

petition to list Pacific lamprey located 

in the lower 48 states may be warranted. 

Accordingly, we are unable to define a 

listable entity of the Pacific lamprey at 

this time and is, therefore, ineligible to 

be considered for listing, we did not 

evaluate its status as endangered or 

threatened on the basis of either the 

Act’s definitions of those terms or the 

factors in section 4(a) of the Act. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Proposed Rules 77167

Little specific information was 

presented in the petition documenting 

significant declines to the western brook 

and river lamprey. The western brook 

lamprey and river lamprey distribution 

overlaps with the petitioned range of the 

Pacific lamprey. Consequently, these 

two species likely experience some of 

the same threats as documented for 

Pacific lampreys. Like the Pacific 

lamprey, the river lamprey may be 

prone to threats common to the lower 

reaches of large developed rivers. In 

contrast, the non-anadromous western 

brook lamprey is not known to be 

subject to threats associated with ocean 

conditions. Most lamprey abundance 

data is based on counts of ammocoetes 

that have not been identified to species. 

While declines or extirpations in 

specific locations have been 

documented, very little quantitative 

information is available to evaluate 

population trends compared to 

historical conditions. The petitioners 

contend that all of the petitioned 

lamprey species have been subjected to 

habitat losses and population declines 

due to a variety of threats. While we 

have no information to the contrary, the 

petition does not provide the substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

required indicating that listing the 

western brook lamprey or the river 

lamprey may be warranted.

Finding 

The Service has reviewed the petition 

to list the Pacific lamprey, western 

brook lamprey, and river lamprey, the 

literature cited in the petition that was 

available to us, and other available 

scientific literature and information in 

our files. Neither the information 

presented in the petition nor that 

available in Service files presents 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information to demonstrate that the 

Pacific lamprey located in the lower 48 

states is a listable entity. Accordingly, 

we are unable to define a listable entity 

of the Pacific lamprey. Since the 

population of Pacific lamprey cannot be 

defined as a DPS at this time, thus 

ineligible to be considered for listing, 

we did not evaluate its status as 

endangered or threatened on the basis of 

either the Act’s definitions of those 

terms or the factors in section 4(a) of the 

Act. We also find that there is not 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that listing the 

western brook lamprey or the river 

lamprey in California, Oregon, 

Washington, and Idaho may be 

warranted. 

Even though we did not find that 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information has been presented to 

indicate that the petitioned action may 

be warranted for these three species of 

lamprey, we encourage interested 

parties to continue to gather data that 

will assist with the conservation of the 

species. Although a nonsubstantial 

finding does not initiate a formal status 

review for these species, we encourage 

additional information gathering and 

research to increase our understanding 

of the status of these species on such 

topics as the following: 

(1) The Pacific, river, or western brook 

lamprey biology and ecology, their 

current and historical distribution and 

abundance, and habitat needs during all 

life stages; 

(2) The range, status, and trends of 

these species; 

(3) Specific threats to these species or 

their habitats; 

(4) Techniques for improving 

identification of lamprey ammocoetes to 

species; 

(5) Any other information that would 

aid in determining these species, 

population status, trends, and structure; 

(6) The adequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms to protect or 

conserve lampreys and their habitat. 

If you wish to provide information 

regarding any of the three lamprey 

species, you may submit your 

information or materials to the State 

Supervisor, Oregon Fish and Wildlife 

Office (see ADDRESSES section above). 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

herein is available, upon request, from 

the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see 

ADDRESSES section above). 

Author 

The primary author of this notice is 

the staff of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office 

(see ADDRESSES section above), with 

support from staff of Service offices in 

California, Oregon, Washington, and 

Idaho.

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., 

Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 04–28167 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; 12-Month Findings on 

Resubmitted Petitions To List the 

Southern Idaho Ground Squirrel, Sand 

Dune Lizard, and Tahoe Yellow Cress

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior.

ACTION: 12-Month Findings on 

Resubmitted Petitions to List Three 

Species Under the Endangered Species 

Act. 

SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service), announce our 12-

month findings on resubmitted petitions 

to list the southern Idaho ground 

squirrel (Spermophilus brunneus 

endemicus), the sand dune lizard 

(Sceloporus arenicolus), and the Tahoe 

yellow cress (Rorippa subumbellata) 

pursuant to the Endangered Species Act 

(Act) of 1973, as amended. We find that 

proposed rules to list these species 

continue to be warranted but precluded 

by other higher priority listing actions. 

We will continue to consider each of 

these species as a candidate for listing. 

We request additional status 

information that may be available for 

any of these three candidate species. 

This information will help us in 

monitoring changes in the status of 

these candidate species and conserving 

them. Also, we will consider this 

information in preparing subsequent 

reviews to determine whether listing 

remains warranted, and in the 

preparation of listing documents in the 

event that a proposal for listing for one 

or more of these species is no longer 

precluded.

DATES: This finding was made on 

December 17, 2004. We will accept 

comments on these three candidate 

species at any time.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments 

regarding any of the three species to the 

Regional Director of the Region 

identified in SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION as having the lead 

responsibility for that species. Written 

comments and materials received will 

be available for public inspection by 

appointment at the appropriate Regional 

Office listed in SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION.

A species assessment form with 

information and references regarding 

each of these three candidate species’

range, status, habitat needs, and listing 

priority assignment is available for 

review at the appropriate Regional